On 08/20/2012 04:11 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Welcome back! > LFS Trac wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:37 CST: >> Comment(by Krejzi): >> >> I just want to say that I personaly won't make use of /usr/libexec >> anywhere where I make the changes untill it is official. >> >> I was even thinking about reverting that for Postfix and vte-0.28 untill >> it's official. > Are those the only two packages in BLFS currently using /usr/libexec? > > I realize that the issue right now is with LFS's Glibc, so just for the > record I prefer individually named directories. But I can go either way, > it is rather small. I know I will continue in my personal builds to > create individual directories for each package the needs a libexec, but > that's just me. Whatever we decide for the books is fine with me. > > I cc'd BLFS-Dev for anyone wishing to discuss this issue as it pertains > to BLFS. > It used to cause minor headaches with Gnome-2.26-32 IIRC, and a fair bit of patching was required for a few packages, but upstream was accepting of patches (except for GDM which eventually got a proper fix as suggested by Dan (ck-* files)), but I'm not sure now days. I build everything in /usr and let /usr/libexec be, seeing as it's now a standard path in the v3 draft. But, "official" FHS-3.0 may take some time. The repo was lost a while ago (when kernel.org got hit I think). I don't know if they ever got it back. /usr/libexec will eventually be standard, so it's probably good to continue in that direction. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
