[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Perl Policy interpretation issue (was Re: Bug#174593: libxml-parser-perl contains sharable files in /usr/lib)

On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Files should be separated only if they are useful without the other
> files ... otherwise it doesn't make sense to separate them and to leave
> in a shared dir some modules that don't work if you don't have the
> corresponding binary module.

Er, we don't have separate dirs for each package on a system.  A package
doesn't place all it's files into a single directory.  They place them into
the FHS required directories, according to their type.

/usr/share exists for a reason: so it can be shared between systems.  Placing
files in /usr/lib is for system-specify(ie, arch-dependant) files, that can
not be shared.

> Files do no matter. It's what you can do with those files. The simplest
> approximation is "module" = "set of interdependent functionnalities" and
> as such they should not be broken without assurance that they are not
> so "interdependent".

FHS doesn't classify files by what you do with them.  They classify them by
type.  And .pm files are sharable.  So into /usr/share they go.

> I think that policy should allow such a split but that it should
> advise to NOT split by default because it doesn't hurt much and because
> it's the safe way when you don't know all the internals of your module.

Allow?  Policy is already quite explicity.  Packages *must* follow FHS.

> I'd add a paragraph for that in the perl policy stating that a package
> that contains both XS and arch-indep files should be classified as
> binary module by default but that the files can be split if the two set
> of files can be used independently.

Fine, it's a binary module.  I have no problem with that.  But the files are
sharable.  And putting them in /usr/lib is wrong, period.

Reply to: