[ Moving to -policy ]. Lintian warns about the use of /usr/i386-gnu as a non-standard directory in the gcc-i386-gnu package I maintain, and it also warns about the use of /usr/m68k-linux in the gcc-m68k-linux package maintained by Martin Mitchell.
These packages are cross-compilers and the paths they use are currently derived from the cross-compiler guidelines in gcc's INSTALL document (by just replacing /usr/local by /usr). Darren Benham objects to adding this to the override file for lintian, because he says this is not FHS-compliant. [ He suggests something like /usr/lib/<pkg>/i386 ]. Martin Mitchell says that "The compiling environments are well defined already, established in the standards, there is absolutely no compelling reason to move it to something Debian specific.". I share this opinion as well, doing it differently would be a lot of work without any real benefit. Richard Braakman points ot that the FHS is very clear: No large software packages should use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy. [...] I think that a cross-compiler is not a "large" software package like the X Window System. So, the questions: * Is /usr/<architecture-string> really forbidden by the FHS for a cross-compiler? [ Is a cross-compiler "large" enough to be considered a "large" software package? ]. * In case they are "forbidden" by the FHS. What are the real benefits of Debian following the FHS in this case? * Should we add a paragraph to the policy so that this is allowed? Opinions? Thanks. -- "21f5e90682bd05df5c7735916b21cd4a" (a truly random sig)
