[csw-maintainers] /usr/local references, and packages

[Philip Brown]

[changing subject lines, both to be more clear, and also because gmail
is very bad sometimes at showing there is new email, in an old thread
:(  ]


On 1/18/11, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Tue Jan 18 18:10:12 -0500 2011:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
>> If you think this /usr/local-thing is worthwhile to do something
>> about then do so, round up the packages concerned and start a
>> project to fix it but stop prolonging the release process, this is
>> not an agreed upon standard.
>
> Peter is right in that you shouldn't enforce a non-existent standard
> like this.  His suggestion is both good and useful.  I'd suggest going
> one step further: propose that it become policy and see if everyone
> (at least the majority) agrees with you.  If so, you've got a reason
> to block packages...otherwise you don't.  It's easier for everyone.
>
> I don't think people are disagreeing that removing /usr/local
> references is a bad thing, just that they don't like being blocked at
> the gate for something that until recently hasn't been an issue.


Ben, what you said is incorrect. This is not some "new policy".  It
has **always** been an issue. From day one. And I have always enforced
it, whenever it came to my attention.
With the understood exception of "oh this is just documentation
examples, so can be ignored".

The only thing that has changed, is that now I guess the pre-release
examination tools have gotten better at picking it up. Or perhaps more
at discriminating between [this is in a doc file, but That is not].

The principle is so glaringly obvious, that it has never needed much
explicit "writing up" until now.
 "When reconfiguring software that defaults to /usr/local, to instead
run under /opt/csw, replace all occurrences of '/usr/local' with
'/opt/csw' "
Claiming that I am enforcing a "non-existent standard", is
unfathomable. This is not "new".