LS,
The FHS is now with us for some considerable long time, but what has
been it's impact?
It has caused controversy between Debian versus Fedora followers, which
has lead to some mutual understanding about the naming of their library
directories.
However, the old school of using [/usr[/local]]/lib is still upon us.
Many tools needed to create a basic tool chain (GNU, Non-GNU, Perl,
Python, Kernel etc.) still have hard coded paths to [...]/lib. FHS
allows an alternative of [...]/lib<qualifier>, whereby [...]/lib CAN be
an optional link to that directory. This, however, is still not the
standard given the many hard coded paths.
Example, if I want to make a system which uses [...]/lib64, I still
end-up with having either a separate directory named [...]/lib, or it is
a link to the lib64 directory.
Now if I want to make - for what ever reason - directories containing
32-bit libraries named [...]/lib32, I still end up with 64-bit libraries
being overwritten by 32-bit libraries because of these hard coded paths.
So, what is the use of the FHS guidelines if many people just keep on
living in their 32-bit past and force their heritage upon us?
I can automatically scan every piece of code and change the [...]/lib
directives into some architecture dependent contents - including
man/info pages - and can tell that this approach is working, but is also
CPU time consuming. I also may introduce errors which show them self in
a future situation only.
So, again, what is the use of the FHS if so many developers just ignore it?
Regards,
Frans.
_______________________________________________
fhs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
