I admire the thought and hard work that went into this file system
reorganization. It is a big step in the right direction. The
documentation is clearly written and very helpful. I can imagine how
difficult this task must be.

As an old Unix developer I have a somewhat visceral reaction against
putting machine-dependent binaries inside a share directory. I suppose
it's too late to fix that for Fuerte, but it's just wrong, and almost
anything would be better. This will not be easy to fix in a future
release.

There is no obvious choice for an alternative. Although "/lib" mostly
contains libraries, there are actually quite a few executables in its
subdirectories, and many more under "/usr/lib". So, I suggest
something like "lib/ros/<ros-package-name>" in place of
"share/<ros-package-name>". Another alternative might be "opt" (or
just making something up), but "lib" seems better to me.

Using "share/ros/<ros-package-name>" for genuine
architecture-independent files (.xml, .yaml, etc.) is good, but not a
requirement. There are advantages to keeping most or all installed
files for a single package together.

The REP mentions a long-term intent to install with no prefix at all.
That seems worthy, but a more realistic goal might be building with a
"/usr" prefix. That fits the usual convention for distributing Debian
or Ubuntu packages. I recommend consulting some Debian package
developers. They have a lot of experience with this stuff, and
probably have strong feelings about what should and should not be
done.

-0; I am sorry to be so critical. I completely agree with the intent
of REP-0122. I really only object to one detail, but it's a big one.
-- 
 joq