On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 00:05 -0600, Archaic wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 12:59:12AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > > I'm not sure that there is a real effect where these programs are > > installed. > > I was explicit enough. The effect I was referring to was cohesion > between the books, not the usability of the software.
Ah, gotcha. Should we cc lfs-dev into this thread? > > FHS says /usr/libexec is just fine. It also says that > > /usr/lib/packagename is just fine. > > Doing a word search for libexec yields no results in the latest FHS pdf. That's because they qualify it as /usr/lib<qual>. <qual> being anything. It would be whatever you want, I suppose. > > I'm inclined to lump all these types of programs in /usr/libexec > > instead of a bunch of unneeded, though descriptive, directories. > > Descriptive is good. :) Agreed. And 9 times out of 10 I'd bet that it is a library in /usr/lib that is calling the program. Calling that program from /usr/lib/packagename would make sense. To me, and why I brought this whole thread up, is that these programs are required by the libraries provided by the package. Not used by root or any other end user. I'm just saying they don't belong in /usr/sbin. The very reaching effect of this is that we don't have to list it in the "Installed Programs" sections of the BLFS instructions. :-) -- Randy rmlinux: [bogomips 3923.96] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.1] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.5] [Linux 2.6.12.6 i686] 01:06:56 up 10 days, 10:16, 9 users, load average: 0.13, 0.13, 0.12 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
