On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:14AM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Michael Schroeder (mls@xxxxxxx) said: > > > Why not /usr/share/xscreensaver if they are arch independent? > > > > /usr/share is for files that can run on any architecture. These > > are files that can be archtecture-specific, but don't have to be. > > Yes, but would it actually hurt (well, apart from the work of changing > the packaging) to have them live in /usr/lib/xscreensaver instead > of /usr/libexec/xscreensaver? Yes, it would (a little). Assume you write an xscreensaver hack in Python, naturally resulting in a noarch package. Now the package will have to contain both /usr/lib/xscreensaver/pythonhack and /usr/lib64/xscreensaver/pythonhack. Mirek -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
