On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Steve Gaarder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> The /usr/local/ directories are part of the File System Hierarchy, at
>> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
>>
>> So, yes, it looks like upstream is following the File System
>> Hierarchy. To play nicely with it, you should ideally, replace the
>> subdirectories in /usr/local/ with individual symlinks.
>>
> They *are* symlinks, but symlinks to a read-only area in AFS space.
>
> Looking at the filesystem RPM, it assumes that it may be the first thing
> being installed in a new system, and (re)creates the basic file system
> structure.  It seems ok with the symlink, but blows up when it can't chmod
> it.

Earlier, you said:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Steve Gaarder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I always thought that /usr/local was defined to be an area left alone by the
> operating system. For many years, we have made it a symlink to a read-only
> directory in AFS space. This has worked fine - until now. When I tried to

A symlink form /usr/local to a read-only AFS space is *not* the same
thing as symlinks for /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/etc,
/usr/local/share, /usr/local/lib, etc. Be clear that replacing
/usr/local with a symlink in the form you describe is *not* compliant
with the FSH. Not that it's not useful in your environment, but just
so you appreciate that you may have issues with core packages such as
the "filesystem" package.