Re: Packaging Lua libraries

[Jamie Webb <j@...>]

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 14:18, Andre Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 09:37, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> > The FHS also says of /usr/share:
> >
> > "It is recommended that application-specific, architecture-independent
> > directories be placed here. Such directories include groff, perl,
> > ghostscript, texmf, and kbd (Linux) or syscons (BSD). They may,
> > however, be placed in /usr/lib for backwards compatibility, at the
> > distributor's discretion. "        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, I don't know. It is explicitly a recommendation, not a rule, and
> /usr/lib is being used for every other language.
>
> Note also that not every UNIX system follows the FHS. Not even all Linux
> distributions follow the FHS. So, I believe it will not be possible to
> provide a "one size fits all" solution, we'd have to go with the most
> common path (backwards-compatible, at least with other languages :)

Other languages have a legacy. Lua doesn't (in this context at least). What 
purpose could 'backward compatibility' with other languages possibly serve? 
The Lua approach thus far has explicity been to do things the best way rather 
than the backward-compatible way, and that means using the FHS on systems 
(such as Debian) where policy dictates it.

-- Jamie Webb