On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 20:02:48 +0900, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > > > If you want me to keep this commit and directory then follow up by: > > > > a) updating rpm macros > > Yes, I was considering this point. Just wondering, what would break (in > theory: nothing should) and how to perform the validation. Didn't want > to do such change without more feedback, so now - if you already > summoned this subject, I'll wait a few days for any comments. > > I've already reviewed these and only one (re)definition needs to be > adjusted (in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/pld), remaining macros seem to be > cascading properly.
Note that there are some inter-package consistency requirements. And just like some packages having hardcoded /usr/libexec, and "require hackery" to use libdir subdirectory, the others have hardcoded /usr/lib** for this purpose and would "require hackery" to use libexec. Without using libexec consequently, I don't see any profits (single place for internal binaries). > > b) cleaning up packages that have libexec redefined directly in specs > > > FHS states this directory is optional, and I do not care at all what GNU > > shamans think. This is not GNU/PLD, just PLD. > > I don't care about all this GNU/crap either, but using some Fedora > systems this directory was really convenient. My personal rationale is > 'follow the world', just to avoid being different than all the rest. On the other side, the "second half of the world" (Debian/Ubuntu) doesn't use libexec. >From minorities, e.g. Gentoo uses, Arch doesn't. -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-pl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl
