Umm, did you even read the FHS before posting this? /usr/share is mandated by FHS
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-4.8.html I'm not even going to bother to post about the rest of this other than to say that there is a planned feature of dpkg&co to be able to exclude certain directories from being installed. On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Brian White wrote: > I'm finding that I really dislike having packages put things in /usr/share. > > 1) If /usr/share is a read-only mount, then I have to unmount it. This means > that all the files under /usr/share still get installed on my machine even > if I'm mounting that directory from elsewhere. (I can delete them, but > it's still an inconvenience and I never remember to unmount until I > get an error.) > > 2) If /usr/share is a read-write mount , then I can overwrite what is already > there and thus possibly cause incompatibilities on other network machines > that could be, at best, difficult to trace. > > 3) If I don't mount /usr/share, then it uses the same amount of disk space > as if it was installed under /usr with no added value. > > So, in the case of #1 and #3 there is no savings in disk space and in the > case of #2 (and I'd think read-write mounts of /usr/share are uncommon) there > is a danger of causing incompatibilities. > > Thus, I propose we make /usr/share be treated the same way as /usr/local > and not allow packages to put anything under it but directories. In most > cases, it should be easy to make the program search /usr/local, then > /usr/share, then /usr/lib, so we can still keep the same basic functionality. > > I think this would be a good policy for Debian 2.1. I can see no advantages > to using /usr/share in packages except for having shared configuration and > this can easily (is most cases) be fixed by searching /usr/share in between > searching /usr/local and /usr/lib. -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
