Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: >> It looks to me as if it would often help significantly, e.g. when a >> pkg-config file, or something else sucks in a load of stuff that's >> irrelevant for running the package. (Separating :lib and needing that >> for building means you need to know something about the packaging rather >> than just using "devel", say.) > > Right, good point. > > The nice thing with “lib” and “doc” is that it has a direct mapping to > the GNU directory classification (libdir, docdir, etc.)
Sure, though there's typically a distinction between lib and, say, lib64, in other distributions, where lib has other than linkable libraries (e.g. in Fedora, openmpi is mostly under the prefix /usr/lib64/openmpi). > Now, we could depart from it and go with “devel”, for the reasons you > give. Let’s experiment and see how it goes! Good to hear as an experimentalist! I wonder how much practical experience people have with conventional packaging and the resulting trades-off, e.g. as Debian, Fedora, etc. maintainers. I think it helps to understand that reasonably well. I'm happy to explain to the extent I can if it helps. I'm more familiar with Fedora, but then Debian is usually easier.
