Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thus, I propose we make /usr/share be treated the same way as > /usr/local and not allow packages to put anything under it but > directories. In most cases, it should be easy to make the program > search /usr/local, then /usr/share, then /usr/lib, so we can still > keep the same basic functionality.
Hmm. I think this is going to be unlikely. We're planning to switch to FHS eventually, and it's my impression, that the FHS mandates the use of /usr/share for much of the stuff we have in /usr/lib. > I think this would be a good policy for Debian 2.1. I can see no > advantages to using /usr/share in packages except for having shared > configuration and this can easily (is most cases) be fixed by > searching /usr/share in between searching /usr/local and /usr/lib. But that's just the point. Let's say I install the emacs20 package on my server. Should it not put stuff in /usr/share? Then where will all the other machines find the files? I think what you really want (and it's been discussed before, though I don't know if anyone is working on it) is a smarter installation tool that can have local config info in something like /etc/dpkg.conf similar to: no_touch_dirs: /usr/share /usr/doc compress_manpages: yes etc... -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
