Re: Cross-compilers
Santiago Vila wrote:
> No large software packages should use a direct subdirectory under the
> /usr hierarchy. [...]
>
> I think that a cross-compiler is not a "large" software package like the X
> Window System.
I think you may be reading too much into the word "large". The complete
paragaph:
No large package (such as TeX and GNU Emacs) should use a direct
subdirectory of /usr. Instead, there should be a subdirectory within
/usr/lib (or /usr/local/lib if it was installed completely locally) for
the purpose. An exception is made for the X Window System because of
considerable precedent and widely-accepted practice.
Given this context, I feel they used "large" because historical offenders
have been TeX, Emacs, and X, all large packages that tend to be so big they
have their own ideosyncratic and difficult-to-change ways of doing things. I
see no technical reason why the size of the package should influence whether
it may contain a directory or not. I think it's clear that the authors of the
FSSTND would object to at 72k /usr/debhelper/ just as much as they would to
a /usr/emacs/. If you open the door to /usr/<arch>, you're opening the door
to a whole lot more..
Why not just contact the FSSTND authors for a clarification?
> * In case they are "forbidden" by the FHS. What are the real benefits
> of Debian following the FHS in this case?
There is a large benefit to debian in being able to say we are FSSTND
complient. The FSSTND is an important linux standard.
> * Should we add a paragraph to the policy so that this is allowed?
No.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: