On Sat, 2013-04-20 at 21:59 +1200, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:54 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > LFS doesn't use it. BLFS depends on who edited the page, and when.
> > We used not to use it, but then some of us were persuaded that it
> > would be in the new standard. Me, I like it, others don't. Your
> > system, your rules.
>
> My personal inclination is to just go with the default. Sure, I can add
> an extra flag to ./configure to put those libexecdir files somewhere
> else, but well... why bother?
>
> Simon.
>
Well, if it were up to, platform specific binary blob libs would
go /usr/lib{32,64} and platform neutral - including what is often put in
libexec - would go into /usr/lib - thus no longer having a case
for /usr/libexec.
If 32 bit libraries are going into /usr/lib though then you have cases
where package foo may want a /usr/lib/foo directory for actual libraries
and a /usr/libexec/foo directory. Especially if multiple versions are
installed, to avoid filename conflicts you could have either
/usr/{include,lib{,32},libexec}/fooN or
/usr/{include,lib{32,64},lib}/fooN
I prefer the latter, Fedora does the former - but for stuff like
perl/python modules, since they use /usr/{lib,64} for platform specific
they can't easily use /usr/lib for platform neutral but platform neutral
modules also aren't really libexec stuff either, so they put them
into /usr/share which to me seems almost equally absurd.
But using /usr/lib for libexec needs and platform independent libraries
makes sense to me. But I just go with the flow with whatever the distro
maintainers do, it's not that big of a deal to me.
Sorry for rambling beyond the scope of support.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
