On 05/10/2017 07:18, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 17:19 Dave Plater wrote:
You need to start a new thread for the last and most important part of your message. My personal opinion is /usr/lib/rpm /usr/share is overpopulated with directories.
That's really weak argument, I must say.
As I'm not one of those who believe that all old standards are dead and 0pointer.de is the word of God, let's check what FHS says:
/usr/share: Architecture-independent data
So the question we should ask is: is the format of RPM database architecture independent? If it is, /usr/share is fine, if not, I would adwise strongly against it and prefer /usr/lib.
Michal Kubeček
I think that the architecture argument doesn't work for /usr/lib, one example is %python_sitelib - site-packages directory for platform-independent modules. Expands to /usr/lib/python%{py_ver}/site-packages Not to mention the fact that /usr/lib/rpm contains most of rpm's architecture independent files. It also contains the only text reference to /var/lib/rpm in rpmdb_loadcvt. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org