On Saturday, 17 de September de 2011 22:13:08 David Faure wrote: > That's my question to this list :-)) > Actually, thinking about it, I have one idea: > appending /libexec to every entry in LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > Would that work?
That would get you /usr/lib/libexec, which is neither what we have nor what
the FHS recommends.
> > > And even write one generic enough to work across distributions.
> > >
> > > Debian and friends uses more or less /usr/lib/NAME/libexec
> > > where as fedora and friends uses /usr/libexec/NAME/
>
> What's NAME there? The package name, in order to split up the helper
> binaries from different packages?
> Do we really need this? After all /usr/bin has no such split.
>
> > The big difference there is whether those executables are
> > architecture-specific in multiarch configurations (e.g.,
> > /usr/lib64/NAME/libexec). Usually they aren't.
>
> How could an executable not be architecture-specific? I must be missing
> something.
I meant if a 64-bit library (/usr/lib64/libfoo) can use a 32-bit helper
application (/usr/lib/foo/libexec/bar). Or to put it simply: where should the
64-bit helper be installed: /usr/lib or /usr/lib64?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
