On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Harald Hoyer <harald.hoyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 20.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> There is no reason to have >>> /usr/share/<pkgdir>/ and /usr/lib/<pkgdir>, even LSB specifies that >>> only a _single_ dir should be used, hence the one in lib not in share. >> Chapter and verse, please? AFAICS all LSB says is >> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/execenvfhs.html > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA > > /usr/lib : Libraries for programming _and_ packages > > Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib. If an application > uses a subdirectory, There is equivalent language in the /usr/share section, with no indication that the two are supposed to be exclusive. > all architecture-dependent data exclusively used by the > application must be placed within that subdirectory. Again, equivalent language in the /usr/share section talks about architecture-independent data. When coupled with the front parts of FHS, it's quite clear that the intent is to split the application's data between the two directories. BTW, pedantic reading of FHS seems not to support at all the concept of an application-defined directory into which other applications are supposed to store additional files. That's a pretty unreasonable interpretation, however. (I think there is sort of a good reason not to require doing the lib vs. share split in Fedora - adding one more directory to check is a not a packaging change, it is a semantic change, it would be now necessary to somehow handle the case when lib and share each contain a different file with the same name. In my view, a lot of the "interesting" udev and systemd really belong to /etc anyway...) Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
