Hello Gilles,
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Gilles Chehade <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 01:41:36AM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote:
>
> > > Long story short, we install in libexec because this is the proper
> place
> > > when we're on a system with a mailwrapper or mailwrapper-like
> mechanism.
> > > But since the mailwrapper exposes programs in bin and sbin paths, a
> link
> > > is created to cope with that in the portable version.
> > >
> > > This needs to be fixed, but the solution is not just to remove the
> links
> > > and so we need to have a discussion with Charles first. We'll do that
> in
> > > public when he is back from wherever he is roaming :-)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The best approach is to install 'real' binaries (smtpd, smtpscript,
> > mail.local, smtpctl, makemap) during "make install" phase directly to
> > 'bindir' and 'sbindir', without any of links and whatever, and let
> > packagers decide about needed links, places and filenames according
> > requirements of the 'alternatives' system they're using (if any).
> >
>
> I don't know if it's the best approach.
> I would tend to prefer an approach where a configure option can be given
> to have the libexec stuff installed there:
>
> ./configure --prefix=/usr/local
> installs in /usr/local/{bin,sbin}
>
> ./configure --prefix=/usr/local --use-libexec
> installs in /usr/local/{bin,sbin} + /usr/local/libexec
>
> That's just a *quick idea* to illustrate that the solution could be
> between keeping libexec like today and getting completely rid of it
> like you suggest.
>
> Whatever we decide, it will be when Charles is back from vacation
> anyways, I don't want him to come back and be surprised with that
> change without him even being involved in the discussion ;-)
>
Of course, from my side it was just only an offer how we could change
builds for better. There are more solutions possible, but I think it's the
simplest and logical.
The solution with an additional flag requires more coding and internal
mechanisms checking, in comparison with installation to
"%prefix/{bin,sbin} That's a disadvantage for developers. Excepting that,
it's a good solution too.
A generic solution like the "--with-libexec" would for example make the
> situation better for your system and others without mailwrappers, while
> still providing the libexec/ indirection for systems that use them.
>
---
wbr, Denis.
