Re: FHS ambiguity: /usr/lib or /usr/share?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:40:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
DB>> Sure, but it is not mandated in any kind of policy that they
DB>> should be. And it can't be mandated, or such policy would soon
DB>> become a mess with all the per-case clauses. I think "anything
DB>> that gets executed goes to lib" makes things more clear cut.
SL> Well, but the policy could let the choice to the package
SL> maintainer, which should know if his package is arch indep or not.
Yes, this is also an option.
SL>>> Finally, i don't know, but are they all that much people really
SL>>> using /usr/share shared between different arches ?
DB>> At least that is usage that FHS refers to, and the only practical
DB>> effect of such division aside from abstract consistency.
SL> Yes, but do you (or someone) know of someone really doing this ?
No.
SL> But again, is it really worth the trouble to set this up, only for
SL> some hypothetical multi-arch installations needing this ?
I agree on this one too. That is why I think that abstract consistency
is more important goal for FHS than minor practical implications, and in
this case the arch-dep/indep criteria serves more to compicate things
than to make it more clear and consistent.
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
Reply to: