Re: /usr/share?
On Mon, Jun 01, 1998 at 01:15:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > It uses GNU autconf's pkgdata dir idea. That's means it puts things
> >> > in /usr/share/WindowMaker (in fact, I've seen quite a few packages
> >> > doing this, which is, IMO, against policy)
>
> Why is that?
Why is what? Me thinking that's against policy or autoconf pkgdata meaning
things end up in /usr/share/WindowMaker? /me thinks that's against policy
because that's against FSSTND, ergo, against policy... Why is that against
FSSTND? Because the FSSTND doesn't specify what /usr/share is for clearly.
Ok, ok, it's not *against* it, but then you can put whatever you want there
because it doesn't say what or how goes there.
> Marcelo> Well. Policy says we use the FSSTND. Not the FHS. FSSTND
> Marcelo> says nothing about /usr/share, does it?
>
> And there fore does not forbid it. Also, we shall be moving
> towards FHS (or parts of the FHS) soon, so it it is not a bad idea to
> use /usr/share (in my opinion). We already have precedence.
Ok, it doesn't forbid, but it doesn't specify either. And yes, I know we are
moving to FHS, but before moving towards it, we must change policy. What
parts of the FHS will we follow? How are we going to migrate from FSSNTD to
FHS? Ian (I think) said one of the goals for slink would be not to repeat
what happened with hamm, that is, packages from hamm can't be installed on
bo without heavy upgrading, if at all. Packages from slink should be
installable on hamm. That's why I'm asking in the first place. Cluttering
/usr/share/ with loads of $package directories is not a really good idea.
And we are doing that already.
Marcelo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: