[Fedora-packaging] Mono Packaging Issues

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Tue Jun 13 17:29:33 UTC 2006

Le mardi 13 juin 2006 à 18:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :

> Which kind of data are we talking about? Scripts and arch-independent
> executables aren't necessarily "data".

Doesn't mean anything in english, the specific work we have in French
for doing computer stuff if often translated as data processing, so the
LSB author might just have wanted to write "Architecture independent
stuff" elegantly.

My personal reading is the authors of the spec wanted stuff which
couldn't be nfs-shared between systems with different architectures
in /usr/lib, and the rest in /usr/share. In that case the rest does
include the dlls.

The thing is not LSB vs how Red Hat used to do stuff like some people
try to put it, lots of Red Hat packagers have chosen for a long time to
put their arch-independant (byte)code in /usr/share :

- java bytecode in /usr/share/java
- lisp code in /usr/share/(x)emacs
- xslt code in /usr/share/sgml/ or /usr/share/xml
- php code in /usr/share/webappname (squirelmail for example)
- tcl code in /usr/share/tclfoo/

dssl, tex also comes to mind

The *vast* majority of noarch/interpreted languages have long
chosen /usr/share as home. Perl and python are the exception, probably
because they mix native with arch-independant code, and no one ever
asked their packagers to clean up their packaging style.

Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060613/65251ae4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list