On 01/01/2011 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 06:34:30PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 17:11:17 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > Afaicr I've never seen this documentented somewhere to do it this way and I'm > > > wondering if this is indeed the agreed upon best practice and if we should > > > document it somehow (policy, devref, whatever). > > > Yes. Arguably it's covered under > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIBESSENTIALSHAREDLIBRARIESANDKERN > > I don't think there's much room for argument at all, the FHS definition of > /lib is pretty clear. :) > > Yes, this does cause problems for autotools and the like when it comes time > to install, since this FHS-mandated split between /usr/lib and /lib isn't > directly supported by automake. A burden we must bear, unless someone wants > to fix automake. In case that the situation is clear, some Ubuntu packages seem to be wrong. At least the Ubuntu libgcrypt11-dev[1] and libgpg-error-dev[2] packages seem to install the development files to /lib. In Debian, at least the following three packages need to be fixed: libnih-dev, libnih-dbus-dev, libsplashy1-dev greetings, jonas [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/i386/libgcrypt11-dev/filelist [2] http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/i386/libgpg-error-dev/filelist
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature