Santiago Vila wrote: > 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.
I think you may be reading too much into the word "large". The complete paragaph: No large package (such as TeX and GNU Emacs) should use a direct subdirectory of /usr. Instead, there should be a subdirectory within /usr/lib (or /usr/local/lib if it was installed completely locally) for the purpose. An exception is made for the X Window System because of considerable precedent and widely-accepted practice. Given this context, I feel they used "large" because historical offenders have been TeX, Emacs, and X, all large packages that tend to be so big they have their own ideosyncratic and difficult-to-change ways of doing things. I see no technical reason why the size of the package should influence whether it may contain a directory or not. I think it's clear that the authors of the FSSTND would object to at 72k /usr/debhelper/ just as much as they would to a /usr/emacs/. If you open the door to /usr/<arch>, you're opening the door to a whole lot more.. Why not just contact the FSSTND authors for a clarification? > * In case they are "forbidden" by the FHS. What are the real benefits > of Debian following the FHS in this case? There is a large benefit to debian in being able to say we are FSSTND complient. The FSSTND is an important linux standard. > * Should we add a paragraph to the policy so that this is allowed? No. -- see shy jo
