[Pkg-tcltk-devel] Bug#434394: Time to move bwidget under /usr/share?

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:02:32PM -0700, Joe English wrote:
> 
> > Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> > > Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > > Bwidget should move its stuff under /usr/share now, it depends on tk8.4
> > > > so I see no reasons to maintain it under /usr/lib which is not
> > > > appropriate by policy.
> 
> Which policy are you referring to?
> 
> I'm guessing you mean the FHS.  If so, then AIUI installing BWidget
> under /usr/lib is OK since, although it is architecture-independent,
> it's still a library.  Similar to things that currently get installed
> under /usr/lib/pythonX.Y and /usr/lib/perl/ (at least in sarge, has
> this changed?).
> 

Both python and perl have _also_ shared libs there, indeed. 
If the 'mixed-mode' should be applied to Tcl too, I would consider 
something like /usr/lib/tcl|tk used instead for non-version specific 
extensions (and per version dirs too) and/or this long standing bug report closed.


> > > I agree with you in principle but as long as Debian's wish8.4 does not
> > > include /usr/share in its auto_path there isn't much point in moving Bwidge
> > > to there as it is not going to be found -- which would make it pretty
> > > useless.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > > I'll contact the Tcl maintainers to find out what they have to say about
> > > adding /usr/share to the auto_path.
> 
> We discussed this this morning on Jabber; consensus seems to be:
> 
>     * Nobody could find a anything in the FHS that would
>       rule out installing Tcl packages under /usr/lib
>       (but we're willing to be corrected);
> 

Well, not packages, but per-package arch-indep files. I agree we have many packages
that has mixed things around in /usr/lib/<package>, but generally it's
deprecated and it should be modified whenever possible. In this specific case at least
it is an arch-indep package, at least :)

>     * Adding /usr/share to the default $::auto_path would be
>       a bad idea, for the same reason that (in retrospect)
>       having /usr/lib there isn't such a good idea [*] -- it would
>       make Tcl look in even more unnecessary places for packages.
>     
>     * /usr/share/site-tcl, /usr/share/site-tcl8, or /usr/share/site-tcl8.X
>       would be OK though.
> 

Yes, something like that would be more appropriate IMHO, as above said.
And even if /usr/lib has been used for years I see no reason to not fix
it with an appropriate migration road-map for interested packages.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine