* Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at sun.com> [2007-05-18 12:10]: > My point is that /usr/share/<something> makes some bit of sense, at > least in a historical context. /usr/<something>/share makes no sense > what so ever. > > I'll assume that the "share" in /usr/gnu/share/man/man1 is only to fit > some form of "expected path". (I'd prefer to see the "share" left out > of this as I think it provides no value and possibly a "snikering > point" (Who Me? Am I snikering?). However, that's really a minor > stylistic choice.) > > In case you haven't guessed, the proliferation of "share" directories is one > of my pet peeves.
The source of the paths in the /usr/gnu case is from http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Directory-Variables with the prefix set to "/usr/gnu". /usr/gnu/share is the default value one would derive for 'datarootdir' and 'datadir' (and a base directory for 'docdir', 'infodir', 'lispdir', 'localedir', 'mandir', and so forth). A new recommendation could easily be the basis for an amendment case. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
