On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Johannes Poehlmann wrote: This has nothing to do with the files being vital or not. The directory /usr/lsb is not listed in FHS until 2.2-beta, and this same standard cleary forbid any other hierarchy under /usr. Of course it can be standardized in 2.3 but for now IMO the lsbdev package is not FHS (and thus not LSB) compliant.
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 10:50:00PM -0300, Flavio Veloso wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > After installing the lsbdev package I noticed that link libraries are > > being installed in /usr/lsb/lib. Isn't it violating the FHS (and thus > > the LSB itself) which doesn't mention /usr/lsb and also clearly states > > that "large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under > > the /usr hierarchy"? > > Hi Flavio, I do not see a problem here. > > LSB libraries are a vital part of a distribution and not a (3rd party) > "software package". So I think it is perfectly legal to have a > /usr/lsb/lib directory. -- Flávio
