On 2002.03.23 20:23 Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 03:58:21PM +0000, Mark Ellis wrote: > > Hi all, i'm curious, is there a specific reason GNU uses this > directory > > when the FHS seems to be trying to get rid of it ? > > Well, it seems like an appropriate place. >
I can't fault your reasoning there :) > > The subject pops up in linuxfromscratch now and again about where to > > > put binaries that want to go in here, i'd be interested to hear why > you > > guys decided to keep it. > > The only alternative is /lib/package/..., but that is kind of an abuse > of > /lib, because programs are not libraries. > > Some use /sbin, which is also an abuse because those programs are not > generally usable by users directly by definition. > > Some use even /usr/sbin/init.d/ or other weird places. > > You really want to use /libexec for these programs. I have the > feeling that > some people thought they could get rid of another directory with just > a > couple of files (just for the sake of getting rid of it), and then had > to > find new places and invent reasons to put them there (such reasoning > could > be like this: "/usr/sbin/init.d/ is right because it is a binary that > is not > boot-essential and not used by any user." Of course, this assumes > that you > don't want to put it in /libexec a priori, or maybe because a mislead > idea > of aesthetics. My suspicion is that some people have no brain, just > grey > fuzzy things in their head :) just kidding) > It does seem like a strange omission to the directory structure without a specific idea of what to use instead. My preference has always been /lib since there are some executables in here but your right, it isn't an entirely appropriate choice. Mark _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
