Bug#409335: [Pkg-cups-devel] Bug#409335: cupsys: packages must not ship directories under /usr/local

[Kenshi Muto]

At Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:58:38 +0200,
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On 2/2/07, Frank Küster <frank at kuesterei.ch> wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
> > > The change requested in 408154 is a policy violation.  Packages are not
> > > allowed to ship any directories under the /usr/local heirarchy; they must be
> > > created in the postinst and removed in the prerm.
> > >
> > > This bug now blocks getting the fix for RC bug 403703 into etch, so please
> > > revert the change.

Hm, I understand the situation.

> > Instead of just reverting, you could also apply this simple patch:
> > +
> > +  * Use dh_usrlocal to install files in /usr/local in the maintainer
> > +    scripts, instead of shipping them in the deb
> 
> Unless I misunderstood the man page, dh_usrlocal is meant for software
> that builds into /usr/local, which we don't. We're only adding a local
> directory in case others need it to install their own PPD.

I think so too.

> We probably should not ship any directory in /usr/local or /opt
> anyhow. It should be up to the third-party or local applications that
> actually supply the PPD to create them.
> Even worse, those PPD directories are not only used by CUPS; other
> PostScript applications and printer daemons use them too. The proper
> solution would be to add those directories to the filesystem skeleton
> used by debian-installer and to the FHS specs.

Even so, we have to locate symlink on /usr/share/ppd for
third parties (by postinst?).
I checked source code and thought it was bit terrible to
add tweak code to support additional directory.

I'm considering whether it is ok or not from policy view to
provide symlink against /usr/local/share/ppd and /opt/ppd.
It will become a missing link if user hasn't these two directories.

Thanks,
-- 
Kenshi Muto
kmuto at debian.org