Per Bjornsson perbj at stanford.edu
Tue May 10 16:49:14 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 12:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michael Schroeder (mls at suse.de) said: 
> > Why not /usr/share/xscreensaver if they are arch independent?
> /usr/share is for files that can run on any architecture. These
> are files that can be archtecture-specific, but don't have to be.

Yes, but would it actually hurt (well, apart from the work of changing
the packaging) to have them live in /usr/lib/xscreensaver instead
of /usr/libexec/xscreensaver? It seems that the former is what would be
prescribed by the FHS.

Since this came up in the SELinux context, there appears to be some real
value in following the FHS since it would apparently significantly
simplify setting up the policy in a distribution-independent fashion.


Per Bjornsson <perbj at stanford.edu>

More information about the devel mailing list