[Fedora-packaging] Mono Packaging Issues

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Jun 15 06:36:21 UTC 2006

Le mercredi 14 juin 2006 à 15:33 -0700, Ian Burrell a écrit :

> Those three languages are grandfathered in because they expect to
> install code and shared libraries in /usr/lib. They now put shared
> libraries and code that uses them under /usr/lib64 and noarch packages
> in /usr/lib.
> Mono is probably in the same boat.  It might be possible to put the
> arch-independent code in /usr/share but it would create compatibility
> problems with existing packages, other distributions, and the
> installers expectations. Probably not worth the trouble for FHS
> purity.

The other distros do not have consistent practice, mono in Fedora is
very new with few packages so far, it *is* the right time to make the
right choice before you have enough old baggage so your argument holds
sway. Red Hat customers always end up forcing Red Hat to follow 'FHS
purity' even if Red Hat doesn't want it¹, so if your argument is it's
hard now why it'll be harder later and you'll have to do it anyway²
(mark my words).

lib64 stuff requiring lib stuff (or the reverse) is going to be a
terrific can of worms as soon as the 64bit OO.o port completes and
people start looking at killing /usr/lib on 64bit systems.

multilib and the FHS are both old enough we shouldn't be making such
stupid mistakes today. 


¹ Red Hat didn't like /srv or media it still is slowly migrating to them
² but perl and python are doing it it can't be so bad - did you really
miss the threads on python noarch problems some months ago ?

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/20060615/69f4f264/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list