On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Files should be separated only if they are useful without the other > files ... otherwise it doesn't make sense to separate them and to leave > in a shared dir some modules that don't work if you don't have the > corresponding binary module.
Er, we don't have separate dirs for each package on a system. A package doesn't place all it's files into a single directory. They place them into the FHS required directories, according to their type. /usr/share exists for a reason: so it can be shared between systems. Placing files in /usr/lib is for system-specify(ie, arch-dependant) files, that can not be shared. > Files do no matter. It's what you can do with those files. The simplest > approximation is "module" = "set of interdependent functionnalities" and > as such they should not be broken without assurance that they are not > so "interdependent". FHS doesn't classify files by what you do with them. They classify them by type. And .pm files are sharable. So into /usr/share they go. > I think that policy should allow such a split but that it should > advise to NOT split by default because it doesn't hurt much and because > it's the safe way when you don't know all the internals of your module. Allow? Policy is already quite explicity. Packages *must* follow FHS. > I'd add a paragraph for that in the perl policy stating that a package > that contains both XS and arch-indep files should be classified as > binary module by default but that the files can be split if the two set > of files can be used independently. Fine, it's a binary module. I have no problem with that. But the files are sharable. And putting them in /usr/lib is wrong, period. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
