Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 10/19/05 01:48 CST: > Yes, I know. Just giving my opinion about /usr/libexec and that I think > it is better to use /usr/lib/packagename. :)
I'm leaning that way as well. Descriptiveness, and in the /usr/lib heirarchy is a good thing. Having to pass a statement to configure is a hassle, but for BLFS packages, it is just simply changing the target as we already pass --libexecdir=/usr/sbin. That's why I always install a package into a dummy location first, before the real install, just to see what all is installed and where. Then, when I do it for real, I can properly set the parameters. This whole thread was started because I was looking at the Evolution instructions to see what dependencies were required. And I noticed that the installed programs versions didn't match any longer. Which meant I needed to update the book to fix it. That's when I started wondering "why is such-and-such installed in /usr/sbin when it isn't even a program that is called by an end user"? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:55:00 up 24 days, 10:19, 3 users, load average: 0.14, 0.12, 0.15 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
