Re: /usr/local

[Alan Post <alan.post@usa.net>]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:14:02PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> 
> > On my debian box, /usr/local was a symbolic link to /local, so boxes NFS
> > mounting /usr on my box could provide their own files for
> > /usr/local/whatever
> > 
> > Unfortunately, some package I upgraded today messed around with my symlink,
> > deleting it and then creating an empty /usr/local tree. I can't figure out
> > which package is responsible to file a bug.
> 
> base-files creates /usr/local and empty dirs under /usr/local but only if
> /usr/local does not exist (maybe some other package removed /usr/local?)
> 

This is not quite true, as your code actually checks if /usr/local is a
directory:

if [ ! -d /usr/local ]; then
    mkdir -p /usr/local
    chown root.staff /usr/local 2> /dev/null || true
    chmod 2775 /usr/local 2> /dev/null || true
    for d in share bin man lib include sbin src; do
        cd /usr/local && mkdir -p $d
        chown root.staff /usr/local/$d 2> /dev/null || true
        chmod 2775 /usr/local/$d 2> /dev/null || true
    done
fi

This condition will fail when /usr/local is a symlink and proceed to populate
it.

aisa

> In either case, I can change this behaviour so that this is only done in
> the "first install" of base-files (which is performed by the boot-floppies
> on a chrooted environment to create base2_2.tgz). Would this improve
> things?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
>  "77da7c4c783b526757249491dd14f83b" (a truly random sig)