On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 16:50 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Gaetan Nadon <mems...@videotron.ca> > > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:04:36 -0500 > > > > We need to comply with the FHS standard. If we don't, other > > installations will break as they use a /usr/share as a common filesystem > > for architecture independent data. The location is not really a project > > preference but a standard that OS are expecting we follow. > > Sorry, Gaeton, but FHS isn't a generally accepted standard. The FHS > people have pushed it as such, but it really is a Linux-specific > standard. So perhaps it is something that Linux distros are expected > to follow, but you shouldn't expect other UNIX-like OSes to follow it. > > That said I believe /usr/share was a BSD invention that seems to have > made it back into most systems derived from System V. So /usr/share > is pretty much a standard for UNIX-like systems. Although I doubt > anybody sane still uses it as a common filesystem. > > Not that the FHS is really relevant here. What matters is what > pkg-config expects. Newer versions do look in /usr/share/pkgconfig, > older versions don't. I argued against the s/libdir/datadir/ change > back in the days for that reason, but modern pkgconfig is pretty much > a requirement for Xorg these days, and at least some Linux distros do > use /usr/share/pkgconfig to create arch-independent packages.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I promised myself to stay away from that debate, but I failed. If it can help, we have set a minimum version for pkg-config at 0.22. http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularDevelopersGuide#GNU_Build_System.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel