Re: FHS ambiguity: /usr/lib or /usr/share?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:55:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
DB>> I can't come to agreement with Alicq upstream about where is a
DB>> proper place to put Alicq optional modules (written in Tcl). FHS
DB>> 2.1 contains self-contradictory recommendations on that issue: on
DB>> one hand, .tcl files are arch-independent and thus belong to
DB>> /usr/share, OTOH /usr/share is supposed to contain _data_ files,
DB>> while libraries and modules should go to /usr/lib.
SL> I don't really know about the response to this one, but i thought
SL> the point of using /usr/share is that you could remote mount it on
SL> multiple system, which may not all be using the same arch, while
SL> /usr/lib is arch dependant.
I agree that it is the point, I am asking is it the only one?
Putting script libraries into /usr/lib does not break systems mounted in
such manner, it only increases number of files that should be stored
separately for each architecture.
Besides, you can't put all script libraries into /usr/share anyway
because some of them may be only wrappers around binary .so libraries:
thus, you would end up putting at least part of such libaries into
/usr/lib (as is the case with Perl modules), and adding /usr/share to
the mix adds complexity necessity of which is questionable.
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
Reply to: