Le mardi 13 juin 2006 à 18:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > Which kind of data are we talking about? Scripts and arch-independent > executables aren't necessarily "data". Doesn't mean anything in english, the specific work we have in French for doing computer stuff if often translated as data processing, so the LSB author might just have wanted to write "Architecture independent stuff" elegantly. My personal reading is the authors of the spec wanted stuff which couldn't be nfs-shared between systems with different architectures in /usr/lib, and the rest in /usr/share. In that case the rest does include the dlls. The thing is not LSB vs how Red Hat used to do stuff like some people try to put it, lots of Red Hat packagers have chosen for a long time to put their arch-independant (byte)code in /usr/share : - java bytecode in /usr/share/java - lisp code in /usr/share/(x)emacs - xslt code in /usr/share/sgml/ or /usr/share/xml - php code in /usr/share/webappname (squirelmail for example) - tcl code in /usr/share/tclfoo/ dssl, tex also comes to mind The *vast* majority of noarch/interpreted languages have long chosen /usr/share as home. Perl and python are the exception, probably because they mix native with arch-independant code, and no one ever asked their packagers to clean up their packaging style. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
