On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Kay Sievers <kay.siev...@vrfy.org> wrote: > /usr/share in our general understanding not to be used for > package-private things. Who is "we"? This is in direct conflict with the FHS:
"Any program or package which contains or requires data that doesn't need to be modified should store that data in /usr/share (or /usr/local/share, if installed locally). It is recommended that a subdirectory be used in /usr/share for this purpose." > There is no reason to have > /usr/share/<pkgdir>/ and /usr/lib/<pkgdir>, even LSB specifies that > only a _single_ dir should be used, hence the one in lib not in share. Chapter and verse, please? AFAICS all LSB says is http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/execenvfhs.html . > Even the original distinction between arch-dependent and > arch-independent to support a share/ subdir that can be *shared* > between different machines will break with config like udev and > systemd in share/. This is not a *natural* place at all. What would break in particular? From a quick grep there is not a single mention of "lib64" in any of the configuration/control files in either /lib/systemd or /lib/udev on my F16 system. > We tend to interpret /usr/share as something today, to place stuff > into that is really *shared* on the same host, like icons, man pages, > things that are mere a collection of similar stuff that multiple > packages use. Again, who is "we" here? FHS is pretty explicit about the intended distinction between "lib" and "share". (And FWIW, none my comments above is to be read to be in favor of moving anything just to make things "prettier" or "more consistent".) Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
