m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Nov 02, Thorsten Glaser <t...@debian.org> wrote:
>> Low-priority sounds about right, but there’s still the supposed >> case of /usr/share sharing across architectures via NFS. > So much hypothetical that I am quite sure that nobody does this. Yeah, at the point where you're so space-constrained on a device that you're doing this, you probably just mount all of /usr from the network, and as soon as you have real storage, it's easy enough to just have one full copy of /usr per architecture (and probably a lot safer and more reliable). Honestly, I think the /usr/share vs. /usr/lib distinction in the FHS may have outlived its usefulness. The only other thing that I know people do with it is check /usr/lib in Tripwire but not check /usr/share, and I'm not sure that makes any sense either. It's tempting to just use /usr/lib for everything and let /usr/share die, but the transition is hideous and a ton of tedious work. Meh. So... we shouldn't gratuitously break the distinction, but it does make me question how much effort we should put into fixing issues like this. We could add a search path to D-Bus to check both /usr/share and /usr/lib, and in a lot of ways that's the simplest fix, but if we could eventually eliminate this distinction, it would remove a bunch of Lintian checking and package machinery and moving stuff about that's of rather questionable usefulness and mostly just wastes maintainer time. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/878ujt71mv....@hope.eyrie.org
