Le Mer 15 mars 2006 08:42, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 15:33 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote:
>
>> I would hugely prefer approach (3) since it seems the least intrusive in
>> terms of changing expectations of how a ruby installation is laid out;
>> noarch packages would install their code into sitelibdir.
>
> One more bit for consideration: because it looks like some backwards
> incompatible changes are inevitable, this would be a good opportunity to
> move the noarch parts to /usr/share. The benefits would be the
> usual /usr/share ones, like %{_netsharedpath} and read only (NFS)
> mounts.
+1
If you change things do it right or you're only scheduling a painful FHS
conformance migration some years later.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
