On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:14:22PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > For documentation, I am ambivalent and also to remove what someone > > has already taken the time to document. > > That's a good point, but the documentation is incomplete. If a user is > looking for a library or executable, would they think to look in > /usr/libexec? Also we don't now document an installed directory such as > /usr/libexec/sudo. >
True; only if they were really having problems; true. Re looking for a program - I got puzzled by something like that in gnome-3 when I was trying to test exactly how much was needed, and ended up having to run a libexec prog from .xinitrc to make progress. So yeah, probably ok to remove. > > For installing in a > > subdirectory, I'm _mostly_ not keen - extra work for no obvious gain. > > > > However, looking back at my logs from October/November when I did > > scripted builds of a lot more of BLFS, I think we might need to do > > this for one or both versions of vte : they both installed > > gnome-pty-helper, without an override it looks as if whichever is > > installed later (if both are installed) will overwrite that program > > from the earlier install. > > Do you know if the versions of gnome-pty-helper were different? If so, > were they equivalent? > They might be the same. To be honest, all the reports google finds for gnome-pty-helper, and my attempt just now to see if it will report a version, suggest most people will probably be better off without it. The subdirectory in both versions of vte contains similar code, but with updated build infrastructure. Both report themselves in config.log as version 1.95.0. Whatever, in some forms of package management, overwriting a file from a different version of a package throws up questions. The user program, headers, and lib from the gnome-3 version already have 2_90 in their name, adding --libexecdir=/usr/libexec/vte-2.90 appears to keep gnome-pty-helper separate and is in line with what we were doing ro use /usr/lib - /usr/libexec/vte2_90 might be more consistent with the rest of the package. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
