Le mercredi 14 juin 2006 à 16:20 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:44 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 14 juin 2006 à 15:34 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:17 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 14 juin 2006 à 14:56 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > If the mono package does not include .so files, it should be BuildArch:
> > > > > noarch and use /usr/lib.
> > > >
> > > > Why on earth do you want it in /usr/lib if you know it's
> > > > arch-independant ?
> > >
> > > Because they're still libraries, in a weird perverted Windowsy way?
> >
> > So what ?
> > Are their any less libraries than jar files ? lisp packages ?
> >
> > All those end up in /usr/share in Fedora now, as the FHS demands
> >
> > The "it's code, therefore it shouldn't go in /usr/share" argument is
> > bogus. We have a ton of code in /usr/share, both shared and app-specific
>
> OK, so if we put everything in %{_datadir}/%{name}, the following
> questions arise:
1. You probably want to create a %{_datadir}/mono or %{_datadir}/c# root
2. if the mono stack is too dumb to work if the .dll and .so are not in
the same dir, you should symlink the dlls to %{_libdir} since it's
difficult to create a symlink pointing both to /usr/lib and /usr/lib64
on a x86_64 system
> 1. Does this work? Or do the apps stop working?
> 2. Can we still put the .so files in %{_libdir}/%{name}, symlink them
> back to %{_datadir}/%{name}? Does this work? Or do the apps stop
> working?
You know after reading this thread I fear the apps will stop working
whatever way we choose, and we won't avoid fixing mono to work with our
chosen policy.
Regards,
--
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
