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/ _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
