Archaic wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 12:59:12AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: >
<snip> >>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. > > While it's true that /usr/libexec/ is not defined by FHS, it is described as part of the GNU Coding Standards. Also some of the packages included by BLFS have over time moved _towards_ using /usr/libexec/ (by default, using --prefix=/usr). For example, xscreensaver no longer places the screensavers in /usr/lib/xscreensaver/, but now uses /usr/libexec/xscreensaver/ instead. Also, gnopernicus has moved brlmonitor from /usr/bin/ to /usr/libexec/. Going through my own archives I find no examples of the reverse (though I'm willing to believe there could be some out there). Also several of the programs which have been added to Gnome more recently make use of /usr/libexec/ as well (I'm comparing a system with Gnome-2.6.2 to one with Gnome-2.10.2). I'm thinking of vino, gtkhtml, evolution, evolution-webcal, and totem specifically. >>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. :) > But what about something like Evolution? Using a simple --prefix=/usr results in /usr/lib/evolution/2.2/ which contains shared libraries, and /usr/libexec/evolution/2.2/ which contains executables and perl scripts. So if I was to strictly follow the --libexecdir=/usr/lib/packagename proposal I would end up with /usr/lib/evolution/2.2/ and /usr/lib/evolution/evolution/2.2/. If I take the logical next step and fudge things to use --libexecdir=/usr/lib instead I end up with just /usr/lib/evolution/2.2/ but wind up mixing up a bunch of stuff that was presumably seperated by the developers intentionally. I ask you, what's the point? Are we somehow disadvantaged by simply leaving well enough alone and just letting packages use /usr/libexec/ if thats what their developers want? I mean at the very least it's one less modification to have to justify and one less thing to have to double check before upgrading a package or preparing a release. Jack Brown -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
