On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:45:23AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:14:51AM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > >> Any thoughts? Objections? > >> > >> -- DJ Lucas > >> > > Since so many package developers disagree with, or at least ignore, > > this part of the old fhs, I'll be happy to remove the overrides and > > their explanations. Sooner rather than later. > > > > But, shouldn't you mention this in LFS first ? ;-) > > Where would it be appropriate? What do we need to say? The directory > seems to be created automatically. > > -- Bruce As at 29th Feb (last time I updated my LFS repo) LFS was overriding libexecdir for the following packages: coreutils, findutils, gawk, gcc, glibc, inetutils, man-db, tar, udev. Inetutils is probably a special case.
Or, are we now saying that in BLFS we'll go with /usr/libexec and prefer what we hope will be in the new fhs, but that LFS will stay with the old fhs and therefore continue to go out of its way to prevent /usr/libexec being created ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
