>I'm interested in tinkering with components of MATE and testing them
>while
>leaving the APT-installed versions alone. I've built and installed the
>components from the Github repos and installed them to /usr/local/. I
>can't figure out how to load applets from /
On 2017-04-01, David Griffith wrote:
>
> I'm interested in tinkering with components of MATE and testing them
> while leaving the APT-installed versions alone. I've built and
> installed the components from the Github repos and installed them to
> /usr/local/. I can
I'm interested in tinkering with components of MATE and testing them while
leaving the APT-installed versions alone. I've built and installed the
components from the Github repos and installed them to /usr/local/. I
can't figure out how to load applets from /usr/local. In
- - wrote:
> Thank you for your very good explanation! I could not find anything
> nearly as good as this in the internet!
But that message is now on the internet. :-)
> Another question came up while reading your message:
> Wouldn't it then be better to give ownership of &#
Hello Bob
Thank you for your very good explanation! I could not find anything
nearly as good as this in the internet!
Another question came up while reading your message:
Wouldn't it then be better to give ownership of '/usr/local/var/lib/cherokee'
to 'www-data:staff',
general.
> I build Cherokee Web Server from source and there are
> some differences between that and the package installation:
Sure.
> - Package: Uses /etc/cherokee/cherokee.conf and /var/www
> - Source: Uses /usr/local/etc/cherokee.conf and /usr/local/var/www
> - Question:
n:
1)
- Package: Uses /etc/cherokee/cherokee.conf and /var/www
- Source: Uses /usr/local/etc/cherokee.conf and /usr/local/var/www
- Question: While somehow the path of the config file looks
reasonable, I am not sure if it's common practice
to have the
Hello List
On 13/08/11 08:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-08-12 23:54 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
If you don't want to do that, use a bind mount rather than a symlink for
/usr/src. Then the /usr/src/linux-kbuild-3.0.0 symlink will work (but
/usr/local/src/linux-kbuild-3.0.0 will not).
hello List:
On 13/08/11 08:13, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-08-12 09:29 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 12/08/11 08:08, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-08-11 21:10 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On my Debian (Wheezy) boxes, the /usr/src is a link to /usr/local/src ,
/usr and /usr/local being
On 2011-08-12 23:54 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>> If you don't want to do that, use a bind mount rather than a symlink for
>> /usr/src. Then the /usr/src/linux-kbuild-3.0.0 symlink will work (but
>> /usr/local/src/linux-kbuild-3.0.0 will not).
>>
>
> In oth
On 2011-08-12 09:29 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On 12/08/11 08:08, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2011-08-11 21:10 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>>
>>> On my Debian (Wheezy) boxes, the /usr/src is a link to /usr/local/src ,
>>> /usr and /usr/local being mounted on dif
ux-kbuild-3.0.0 symlink will work (but
/usr/local/src/linux-kbuild-3.0.0 will not).
In other words, the issue remains.
Is there a way to ask to the involved package to link via an absolute path
rather than a relative one ?
May I fill a bug report here ?
Thanks,
Jerome
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hello List:
On 12/08/11 08:08, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-08-11 21:10 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On my Debian (Wheezy) boxes, the /usr/src is a link to /usr/local/src ,
/usr and /usr/local being mounted on different partitions.
I guess it is a common practice.
It might be common, but it
On 2011-08-11 21:10 +0200, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On my Debian (Wheezy) boxes, the /usr/src is a link to /usr/local/src ,
> /usr and /usr/local being mounted on different partitions.
> I guess it is a common practice.
It might be common, but it is not a good practice since /u
Hello List:
On my Debian (Wheezy) boxes, the /usr/src is a link to /usr/local/src ,
/usr and /usr/local being mounted on different partitions.
I guess it is a common practice.
Whatever, I have noticed that in my /usr/src (-> /usr/local/src)
an orphaned link was created linux-kbuild-3.
:19:03 je Cameron Hutchison napisal(a):
> | > > Klistvud writes:
> | > >
> ...
> | > >
> | > > # chgrp users /path/to/shared/directory
> | > > # chmod g+s /path/to/shared/directory
> | > >
> ...
> |
> | Anybody care to chime in? The
t; > # chgrp users /path/to/shared/directory
| > > # chmod g+s /path/to/shared/directory
| > >
...
|
| Anybody care to chime in? The question was: how does /usr/local
| manage to assign a predefined group ownership to every file you copy
| to /usr/ local? Can such behaviour be replic
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanx. Your solution, though, only works for newly created files.
> Files
> *copied to* my shared dir from elsewhere still retain their original
> group ownership(s)... That never happens in usr/local.
>
> --
> Certifiable Loonix User
t; >the group owner "users".
>>
>> # chgrp users /path/to/shared/directory
>> # chmod g+s /path/to/shared/directory
>Thanx. Your solution, though, only works for newly created files. Files
>*copied to* my shared dir from elsewhere still retain their original
ian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
Thanx. Your solution, though, only works for newly created files. Files
*copied to* my shared dir from elsewhere still retain their original
group ownership(s)... That never happens in
Klistvud writes:
>I have a shared directory on my system; what I'd like to achieve is
>making every newly created (or copied from elsewhere) file belong to
>the group owner "users".
# chgrp users /path/to/shared/directory
# chmod g+s /path/to/shared/directory
The set-group-id bit on a direct
Howdie, fellow Debianites!
I have a shared directory on my system; what I'd like to achieve is
making every newly created (or copied from elsewhere) file belong to
the group owner "users". In short, I have been trying to replicate the
behaviour of the /usr/local directory. Let m
I cannot make htdig search in /usr/local and /opt. I have tried to
change /etc/apache/http.conf as suggested by htdig's FAQ:
Options Indexes FollowSymLinks Includes ExecCGI
with no result in woody. Any ideas??
Saluti, Mauro.
--
On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER r
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:45:36PM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker said
> I just installed the lighthouseblue GTK+ engine into /usr/local on
> 3.0r2. I like to keep my own from-source installations in /usr/local
> instead of /usr, so they won't mix with my debs.
>
> GTK+ doesn&
I just installed the lighthouseblue GTK+ engine into /usr/local on
3.0r2. I like to keep my own from-source installations in /usr/local
instead of /usr, so they won't mix with my debs.
GTK+ doesn't seem to be able to find it, though. It's not coming up in
my Theme Selector in GN
on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:30:30PM -0500, Paul Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:27:20 -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>
> >
> > Default debian install creates no usr/local directories, at least it never
> > has for me.
> >
>
> Sorry
Stefan Karrmann wrote:
Hi,
everytime after updating some packages I have to update
/usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.so.1. Why does this happen?
I use:
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
After running:
# apt-get install alsa-source mplayer-k7 mencoder-k7
[...]
I check
Hi,
everytime after updating some packages I have to update
/usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.so.1. Why does this happen?
I use:
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
After running:
# apt-get install alsa-source mplayer-k7 mencoder-k7
[...]
I check it again, but
a debian system, yet have it installed in /usr/local?
Probably, swipe them from Daniel Stone's packaging of XF86-4.3 for
Sid:
http://www.penguinppc.org/~daniels/sid/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I'm using mostly "testing" and have XFree86 4.2.1 installed via
apt-get.
If i compile XFree86 4.3 from source, what's the easiest way
to find all the compile options suitable for it to work well
in a debian system, yet have it installed in /usr/local?
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, bob parker wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:41, Zhao YouBing wrote:
> > for install programs?
> >
> > It think the FHS doesn't state it very clearly.
> >
> > There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
>
Zhao YouBing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for install programs?
In Debian, I'd always use /usr/local and never /opt.
> There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
> and /opt can be made globally sharable,
...huh? /usr/local is just as glob
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:41, Zhao YouBing wrote:
> for install programs?
>
> It think the FHS doesn't state it very clearly.
>
> There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
> and /opt can be made globally sharable,
> but besides that are there
Lukas Ruf wrote:
Zhao YouBing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-07 13:37]:
There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
and /opt can be made globally sharable,
but besides that are there any factors more important which can tell me
which should be my dest dir
Lukas Ruf wrote:
Zhao YouBing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-07 13:37]:
There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
and /opt can be made globally sharable,
but besides that are there any factors more important which can tell me
which should be my dest dir
Zhao YouBing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-07 13:37]:
> There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
> and /opt can be made globally sharable,
> but besides that are there any factors more important which can tell me
> which should be my dest dir w
for install programs?
It think the FHS doesn't state it very clearly.
There are some difference anyway, /usr/local is for local group access
and /opt can be made globally sharable,
but besides that are there any factors more important which can tell me
which should be my dest dir w
Hi,
Why not just remove files and not dirs?
find /usr/local -type f -print0 | xargs -0 rm -f
manoj
--
There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7
"Vincent" == Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 15:10:59 -0400, Nick Guerrera
Vincent> wrote:
>> I would like to clean (i.e. "rm -fr") my /usr/local
>> directory. However, several packa
dman write:
> They [packages] aren't allowed to [use /usr/local].
They are allowed to create directories, but not files.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:25:27PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
| On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 15:10:59 -0400, Nick Guerrera wrote:
| > I would like to clean (i.e. "rm -fr") my /usr/local directory. However,
| > several packages (emacs, python, tex, etc.) create useful empty
| >
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 15:10:59 -0400, Nick Guerrera wrote:
> I would like to clean (i.e. "rm -fr") my /usr/local directory. However,
> several packages (emacs, python, tex, etc.) create useful empty
> directories in /usr/local.
I thought that packages shouldn't use
On 02-May-2002 Nick Guerrera wrote:
> I would like to clean (i.e. "rm -fr") my /usr/local directory. However,
> several packages (emacs, python, tex, etc.) create useful empty
> directories in /usr/local.
>
> Is there a way to restore these directories after deleting e
I would like to clean (i.e. "rm -fr") my /usr/local directory. However,
several packages (emacs, python, tex, etc.) create useful empty
directories in /usr/local.
Is there a way to restore these directories after deleting everything in
/usr/local?
(By the way, I am running Woody.)
Th
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:42:47PM -0600, Lance Simmons wrote:
>
> The author says you should install it, then use it to make a deb of
> itself and reinstall it using the deb.
>
But I downloaded the deb of checkinstall from the home site. It also
included install watch which che
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:45:25PM +0100, Michael Wagner wrote:
> I also use stow for my software in /usr/local. But you can also try
> checkinstall. [...]I didn't find a deb from this program, but at
> freshmeat.net you can get it.
The author says you should install it, then us
On Thursday, 06. Dec. 2001 at 21:02:09, George Karaolides wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > > I recall recently someone on this list mentioning a software, maybe a
> > > Debian package, that manages installation of software under the /usr/local
> >
on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:48:27PM -0500, Alan Shutko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> George Karaolides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I recall recently someone on this list mentioning a software, maybe a
> > Debian package, that manages installation of software under the
George Karaolides writes:
> Does anyone remember what this was?
stow
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> George Karaolides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I recall recently someone on this list mentioning a software, maybe a
> > Debian package, that manages installation of software under the /usr/local
> > hierarchy.
>
&g
George Karaolides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recall recently someone on this list mentioning a software, maybe a
> Debian package, that manages installation of software under the /usr/local
> hierarchy.
stow, maybe?
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety
Hi,
I recall recently someone on this list mentioning a software, maybe a
Debian package, that manages installation of software under the /usr/local
hierarchy. I seem to recall that it was said that this manager installs
each piece of software in a separate subdirectory, and makes symlinks in
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 22:57:20 +0200, Walter Hofmann wrote:
> I used "dpkg -L htdig | xargs grep -l acroread". Now I know that the
> wrong path is hard-coded in each of the following binaries:
> Does this mean I need to recompile htdig?
Yes.
> (Given that I don't actually use it I'll probably
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 21:10:17 +0200, Walter Hofmann wrote:
> > /etc/cron.daily/htdig:
> > PDF::parse: cannot find pdf parser /usr/local/bin/acroread
> >
> > Looks like some perl script is misconfigured. But I canno
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 21:10:17 +0200, Walter Hofmann wrote:
> /etc/cron.daily/htdig:
> PDF::parse: cannot find pdf parser /usr/local/bin/acroread
>
> Looks like some perl script is misconfigured. But I cannot find a way to
> set the path for acroread. Where is it set?
Most like
I get the following error message in a mail from Anacron:
/etc/cron.daily/htdig:
PDF::parse: cannot find pdf parser /usr/local/bin/acroread
Looks like some perl script is misconfigured. But I cannot find a way to
set the path for acroread. Where is it set?
Walter
> "kmself" == kmself writes:
>> (2) That it can download other packages that depend on WINE or
>> Netscape.
kmself> There's a way to create a pseudopackage to do this. I'm
kmself> not sure of how, I'd double-check Debian docks and/or
kmself> Google. I also suspect the
ckages into the
> /usr/local/ hierarchy.
>
> I would like to let `apt-get' know two things:
> (1) Don't muck with with WINE and Netscape, and
Good as done. Debian doesn't touch /usr/local, except to create certain
subdirectories. No files are placed there. No fil
Hello,
I have put a more recent version of WINE and a copy of Netscape4 from
the Netscape site onto my otherwise, strict potato system. I had
various reasons for doing this and put both packages into the
/usr/local/ hierarchy.
I would like to let `apt-get' know two things: (1) Don't
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 12:39:35AM -0200, Hammurabi Mendes wrote:
> I am doing some configuration now, and installing new programs, but I
> would like not to desorganize the system or compromise the system
> security, and I have 2 questions:
>
> Is /usr/local the right place to
I am doing some configuration now, and installing new programs, but I
would like not to desorganize the system or compromise the system
security, and I have 2 questions:
Is /usr/local the right place to put executables that are not controlled
by packages?
If some user is supposed to access
on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:16:26AM -0800, Krzys Majewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> > I use a fairly liberal sudoers setting for my personal account. Yes,
> > this means that I'm usually only a few keystrokes away from being
> > root -- but that's what I'm aft
Martin WHEELER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > > I become root about a hundred million times a day.
>
> So why not just log on to VC1 (Alt+Ctrl+F1) as root; and VC2
> (Alt+Ctrl+F2) as user? Then just hot-key between them, as required.
B
kmself@ix.netcom.com writes:
> I use a fairly liberal sudoers setting for my personal account. Yes,
> this means that I'm usually only a few keystrokes away from being
> root -- but that's what I'm after. And a password is still required.
If you need a password, then why not just su?
-chris
just to nit a pick before someone else does in my little trojan...
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:58:41PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> do you always type /usr/bin/sudo instead of just sudo?
>
> #! /bin/sh
> ## this is a fake sudo
stty -echo
> printf 1>&2 "Password: "
stty echo
> read password
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:37:02AM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> This only works if you can physically secure your system. I prefer
> *not* to leave *any* open sessions on VCs, particularly when I'm running
> principally in X and forget about them.
thats what vlock and screen are for.
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:48:34AM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>
> Not quite. It makes my password equivalent to a root password. And it just
> so
> happens that my root password is the same as my normal account password
> anyways. ;-) Yes, I know it's not the best thing to do, but I can't keep
on Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 07:10:24PM +, Martin WHEELER ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > > I become root about a hundred million times a day.
>
> So why not just log on to VC1 (Alt+Ctrl+F1) as root; and VC2
> (Alt+Ctrl+F2) as user? Then j
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > I become root about a hundred million times a day.
So why not just log on to VC1 (Alt+Ctrl+F1) as root; and VC2
(Alt+Ctrl+F2) as user? Then just hot-key between them, as required.
msw
--
Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonb
William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 31 Oct 2000, Hubert Chan wrote:
>
> > My sudoers file is basically just
> > hubert ALL=(ALL) ALL
>
> This can be extremely convenient. But it also makes the security of the
> whole system equal to the security of your user account.
Not quite.
Phil Brutsche wrote:
> sudo rocks, btw. It should be standard equipment on any and all
> Linux/unix systems. But only on OpenBSD is that so :(
Fyi, MacOS X public beta ships with sudo as well.
jpb
--
Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
University of Central Florida School of Optics/CREOL
Network/Sy
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:31:08PM -0600, Damian Menscher wrote:
> You should behave in this manner anyway. A compromised user account is
> destined to become a compromised root account. There are too many local
> root exploits to ignore the danger.
Could you give some examples for local root
Krzys Majewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Any opinions on which should go first in the path:
>/usr/bin or /usr/local/bin?
Definitely /usr/local/bin - you normally want local tools to override
distributed tools.
>/usr/bin: this is where Debian stuff goes. If you want to o
= root password. now if i could configure sudo to require the root
password instead of mine for some/all commands that would be nice
since you get the limited cache unlike su -c. but since i can't i
just use /bin/su -c and full su to root for maintenance.
and i always get rid of that e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said...
> I'm of the same opinion with regard to sudo. Basically, if you're the
> sort of person who never passes your password over the network in
> plaintext (ie., ssh, apop, etc.), then it's unlike
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Damon Muller wrote:
> Without actually knowing your password, which sudo requires, having
> your account *isn't* equivalent to having root.
It's certainly possible to build a "rootkit" style setup which would be
suitable for converting a privileged account into root.
What if
Quoth Damon Muller,
> Quoth kmself@ix.netcom.com,
> > I use a fairly liberal sudoers setting for my personal account. Yes,
> > this means that I'm usually only a few keystrokes away from being
> > root -- but that's what I'm after. And a password is still required.
>
> I'm of the same opinion
Quoth kmself@ix.netcom.com,
> I use a fairly liberal sudoers setting for my personal account. Yes,
> this means that I'm usually only a few keystrokes away from being
> root -- but that's what I'm after. And a password is still required.
I'm of the same opinion with regard to sudo. Basically,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, William T Wilson wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2000, Hubert Chan wrote:
>
> > My sudoers file is basically just
> > hubert ALL=(ALL) ALL
>
> This can be extremely convenient. But it also makes the security of the
> whole system equal to the security of your user account.
>
> If you
on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 02:13:49PM -0800, Krzys Majewski ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I have /root/ symlinked to /home/krzys, so my .bashrc et al get
> sourced by root as well. Should I be worried?
Yes. This is bad practice.
Changes made to your user account are now equivalently c
On 31 Oct 2000, Hubert Chan wrote:
> My sudoers file is basically just
> hubert ALL=(ALL) ALL
This can be extremely convenient. But it also makes the security of the
whole system equal to the security of your user account.
If you are worried about security, and you have a situation like this,
Krzys Majewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have /root/ symlinked to /home/krzys, so my .bashrc et al get
> sourced by root as well. Should I be worried? I understand the
> privileged status of root, however, given that 90% of my time on this
> machine is spent tweaking it (and
On Tuesday, 31 October 2000 at 14:03, Krzys Majewski wrote:
> Any opinions on which should go first in the path:
> /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin?
>
> Arguments I can see:
> /usr/local/bin: say you compile your own gcc. This is where it
> goes. You may not want to rem
an
environment similar to my own, but I'm willing to weigh compelling
arguments against that,
-chris
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Damian Menscher wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Krzys Majewski wrote:
>
> > Any opinions on which should go first in the path:
> > /usr/bin or /us
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Krzys Majewski wrote:
> Any opinions on which should go first in the path:
> /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin?
For a user or for root?
For a user, definitely put /usr/local/bin first. That way they can get
all of your local customizations for that machine.
For root, yo
Any opinions on which should go first in the path:
/usr/bin or /usr/local/bin?
Arguments I can see:
/usr/bin: this is where Debian stuff goes. If you want to override
Debian stuff with your own stuff, 'apt remove' is pretty
straightforward.
/usr/local/bin:
gt;> *the* method.
> >
> >> You have now ;) That's exactly how I deal with it, and I haven't
> >> seen anything that can do the job as well ...
:)
> >> And the symlink algorithm it uses just *rocks*.
Sure does.
> When you want to uninstall the packa
look at?
'apt-get install stow'
The idea is that, instead of installing locally installed software into
random directories in /usr/local and then ending up with them all mixed
up and with no idea what to do if you ever want to uninstall them again,
you install the software into /usr/l
way to deal with locally installed
> >> software from source under the /usr/local/ or /opt/ tree?
> >>
> >> I use GNU stow, but never actually saw anyone suggesting this to be
> >> *the* method.
>
> > You have now ;) That's exactly how I deal with it
"Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sven Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quick question on administration:
>>
>> what exactly is the best way to deal with locally installed
>> software from source under the /usr/local
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 11:20:10PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
> Quick question on administration:
>
> what exactly is the best way to deal with locally installed software
> from source under the /usr/local/ or /opt/ tree?
>
> I use GNU stow, but never actually saw anyone sug
Sven Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quick question on administration:
>
>what exactly is the best way to deal with locally installed software
>from source under the /usr/local/ or /opt/ tree?
>
>I use GNU stow, but never actually saw anyone suggesting this to be
>
Quick question on administration:
what exactly is the best way to deal with locally installed software
from source under the /usr/local/ or /opt/ tree?
I use GNU stow, but never actually saw anyone suggesting this to be
*the* method. How do you guys best deal with this?
Comments anyone
Hi,
I built XFree86 4.0.1 from source and installed into /usr/local with
ProjectRoot=/usr/local/X11R6 and EtcX11Directory=ProjectRoot/etc.
When I run /usr/local/X11R6/bin/startx I don't believe I'm starting X 4.0.1.
This startx has on its last line xinit ... without any path.
> Now if we are concerned about administrators being able to keep all
> applications in the dpkg database, so as to insure system integrety,
> could not some kind of generic .config script be written that creates
> .deb files for non-supported applications.
It's called debhelper, and most develope
Recent discussions about netscape and other non-gpl applications prompt
me wonder about the debian packaging system. In most unix systems software
that is not part of the distribution is compiled and put into /opt
or /usr/local or some similar place. Usually developers will have make files
for
On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 10:07:18PM -0500, S. Salman Ahmed wrote:
> The only way around the problem for non-root users was to create a new
> group (javauser), chgrp -R javauser /usr/local/uml/Together, and then
> add myself to that group javauser. The permissions before this fix were
&
On 05-Feb-2000 Eric G . Miller wrote:
>
> Well, perhaps there's an error. However, I have some empty dirs under
> /usr/local/lib/ghostscript after the upgrade. Hmm.
I noticed the same thing after I ran 'apt-get upgrade' today. I don't know if
I have empty directories yet.
--
Andrew
gt; > Unpacking replacement gs ...
> > dpkg: warning - unable to delete old file `/usr/local/lib': Directory
> > not empty
> >
> >
> > Why on Earth would it be messing with anything under /usr/local? Is a
> > bug report warranted?
>
> because the previou
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:04:11PM -0800, Eric G . Miller wrote:
> Just did a dist-upgrade and I saw this:
>
> Preparing to replace gs 5.10-7 (using .../archives/gs_5.10-8_i386.deb)
> ...
> Unpacking replacement gs ...
> dpkg: warning - unable to delete old file `/usr/local/lib
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
