On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but > Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed > Junichi> that some known good practice is not documented in policy, > Firstly, there is no such consensus that I can see. Secondly, > I have not seen any technical reason to make Packages > change.
Did you look at the patch, or just read the introduction? Junichi just
seems to be codifying current practice ("If you want to include support
stuff in a lib* package, put it in /usr/lib/<pkgname> so when you install
libfoo2, you don't get file conflicts"), not introducing random new
stuff ("Put stuff in /libexec! Yay hurd! Yay BSD! Boo FHS!"). Are there
any packages that don't comply with the patch, that don't already have
problems with the fourth paragraph of section 11.3?
> Junichi> and I propose the following patch:
> This is way premature.
Patches are almost always a good thing, even if they're completely
unsuitable to be applied. This one doesn't seem particularly unsuitable.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
pgpX4Y1MWeRep.pgp
Description: PGP signature
