Re: FHS filesystem layout issues [was: Re: Request for update and/or release of GDL2 and Renaissance]

[Markus Hitter]

Am 31.01.2014 13:38, schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald:
> 2. The resources have to be split upon architecture dependency lines
> ... ie architecture dependent stuff has to go in 'lib' and
> architecture independent stuff in 'share'. This is probably where the
> FHS vs Bundles idea comes from ... a bundle might well contain both
> types of resource, but FHS wants to split them up.

Yes, matches my understanding exactly.

To defend FHS a bit, they bundle not by the ownership of the file, but
by file type. One of the advantages is, you can put /usr/share into the
multi-architecture network, keeping only architecture dependent stuff
locally. Wether NeXT-type bundles or FHS is better is undoubtly
debatable, but FHS isn't entirely silly either.

> I suppose we could pretend all resources are architecture dependent
> and put bundles entirely in 'lib' rather than 'share', and it might
> technically satisfy Debian policies.  However, that's rather ugly (an
> abuse of the system really).

Not only ugly, but also detected by lintian. Not likely to pass Debian
mentors (which decide what goes into the official repos).


Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.reprap-diy.com/
http://www.jump-ing.de/