Re: FHS ambiguity: /usr/lib or /usr/share?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:14:26AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
AS>>> "Ruby sucks". Ignore it. Arch-indep to share, arch-dep to lib,
AS>>> screw everything else.
DB>> That didn't convince me, neither in "Ruby sucks" part (all my packages
DB>> in Debian except Alicq are Ruby libraries :), nor in "arch-indep to
DB>> share" part: aside from common sense "lib is for libraries", in another
DB>> sub-thread it was already mentioned that even interpreted libraries are
DB>> not always "arch-indep".
SL> But then, there are some that are.
Sure, but it is not mandated in any kind of policy that they should be.
And it can't be mandated, or such policy would soon become a mess with
all the per-case clauses. I think "anything that gets executed goes to
lib" makes things more clear cut.
SL> Finally, i don't know, but are they all that much people really
SL> using /usr/share shared between different arches ?
At least that is usage that FHS refers to, and the only practical effect
of such division aside from abstract consistency.
SL> Does dpkg/apt even allow this to work without breaking all kind of
SL> things ?
AFAIK yes, but I'm too lazy to prove this :)
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
Reply to: