Ken Moffat wrote: > 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. I can look at those. > 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 ? I really doubt that FHS will pull /usr/libexec. I read the mailing list and there has been virtually no discussion about it. Ubuntu does not use it, but Fedora does (25 subdirectories and 113 direct files). -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
