Re: binaries for different architectures in debian packages
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:25:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Best would be (if this is allowed according to the policy) to put
> > everything under
> > /usr/share/texlive/
> > where there are
> > .../bin/<arch>-<os>/
>
> No, this is a violation of the FHS, which is included by reference in Debian
> policy. You would, at a minimum, have to use /usr/lib instead of
> /usr/share.
But wasn't what he's trying to do the original purpose of /usr/share
anyway? (I don't mean in a Debian context, I mean in a general *nix
context)
It's been so long since I've seen anyone bother to do things that way
that I can't remember exactly...
> Even in that case, I don't think it's very consistent with Debian design
> philosophy to have a monolithic package including binaries for other
> architectures, which seems to be your intent. It certainly wouldn't be
> eligible for inclusion in Debian main in such a form.
That would be more the point, I think.
The point of sharing installed software over NFS (or whatever system)
like that was to save the disk space and effort required to distribute
the packages to all the different machines. With modern disks and
package management systems, the usefulness is usually rather diminished.
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: