<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.32.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 16:50 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> > From: Gaetan Nadon <<A HREF="mailto:memsize@videotron.ca">memsize@videotron.ca</A>> > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:04:36 -0500 > > We need to comply with the FHS standard. If we don't, other > installations will break as they use a /usr/share as a common filesystem > for architecture independent data. The location is not really a project > preference but a standard that OS are expecting we follow. Sorry, Gaeton, but FHS isn't a generally accepted standard. The FHS people have pushed it as such, but it really is a Linux-specific standard. So perhaps it is something that Linux distros are expected to follow, but you shouldn't expect other UNIX-like OSes to follow it. That said I believe /usr/share was a BSD invention that seems to have made it back into most systems derived from System V. So /usr/share is pretty much a standard for UNIX-like systems. Although I doubt anybody sane still uses it as a common filesystem. Not that the FHS is really relevant here. What matters is what pkg-config expects. Newer versions do look in /usr/share/pkgconfig, older versions don't. I argued against the s/libdir/datadir/ change back in the days for that reason, but modern pkgconfig is pretty much a requirement for Xorg these days, and at least some Linux distros do use /usr/share/pkgconfig to create arch-independent packages. </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks a lot for the clarification. I promised myself to stay away from that debate, but I failed. If it can help, we have set a minimum version for pkg-config at 0.22. <A HREF="http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularDevelopersGuide#GNU_Build_System.">http://wiki.x.org/wiki/ModularDevelopersGuide#GNU_Build_System.</A><BR> <BR> </BODY> </HTML>