On Mon, 13.06.11 17:41, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 14:27, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
It's a directory for arch-dependent stuff that should only exist once on
a
On Mon, 13.06.11 11:52, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:41 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 14:27, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
It's a directory for
On Mon, 13.06.11 13:25, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:36:00PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
That is not really how it is. /lib is for arch-dependent stuff including
the libraries of the primary arch. Libraries for secondary archs are
then put in
On Tue, 14.06.11 00:31, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
The distinction between stuff which belongs into %{_libdir}, which is
different for 32-bit vs. 64-bit, vs. stuff which always goes to the same
2011/6/14 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de:
On 06/14/2011 12:26 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
I spent some time yesterday talking with opensuse guys on irc, since
/usr/libexec has not been blessed by FHS
libexecdir is GNU Standards for ages (decades).
It's supposed to be
On 06/14/2011 11:57 AM, 80 wrote:
2011/6/14 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de:
On 06/14/2011 12:26 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
I spent some time yesterday talking with opensuse guys on irc, since
/usr/libexec has not been blessed by FHS
libexecdir is GNU Standards for ages
2011/6/14 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de:
Well, I would agree to tolerating /usr/lib/package/ (Which btw is the
current defacto rule in Fedora practice) but would disagree otherwise,
because
- /usr/share (aka datadir) is reserved for arch-independent data, i.e.
should not contain
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Multilib subdirs are arbitrary directory names. There is no convention
of them being named lib*.
There is, it's written in the FHS:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIBLTQUALGTALTERNATEFORMATESSENTIAL
But I don't see anything banning qual=exec there!
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Multilib subdirs are arbitrary directory names. There is no convention
of them being named lib*.
PS: Actually this:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLTQUALGTALTERNATEFORMATLIBRARI
is the relevant reference for /usr/libqual (the other one was for
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, but in which way is arch-dependent non-executable data any
different from private binaries? I see no reason why one should live in
libdir, and the other in libexecdir.
Arch-dependent libraries need to be multilib (both in lib and lib64), for
executables, only
On 06/14/2011 04:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Multilib subdirs are arbitrary directory names. There is no convention
of them being named lib*.
There is, it's written in the FHS:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIBLTQUALGTALTERNATEFORMATESSENTIAL
This has
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
I thinkLennart is saying that on a 64 bit system they would have to go
to /usr/lib32
No, there is no /usr/lib32.
Correct. /usr/lib is 32-bit libraries, /usr/lib64 is 64-bit libraries. (*)
My objection to putting 64-bit helper binaries in
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
I guess because binaries shouldn't go in the library directory.
Now if you wanted to get rid of the {,/usr}/lib64 nonsense, *that*'s
something we can all get behind ...
Rich.
--
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
I guess because binaries shouldn't go in the library directory.
Now if you wanted to get rid of the {,/usr}/lib64
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:27:55PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:16:45PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 13:41, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is
On Mon, 13.06.11 14:27, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
I guess because binaries shouldn't go in the library directory.
But it isn't a library
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:41 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 14:27, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
It's a directory for arch-dependent stuff that should only exist once on
a system,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 05:36:00PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
That is not really how it is. /lib is for arch-dependent stuff including
the libraries of the primary arch. Libraries for secondary archs are
then put in /usr/lib{64,arch}/.
Gentoo is the only distro which is so confused to
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:43:46AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
I guess because binaries shouldn't go in the library
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 07:57:46PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:43:46AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:41 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 02:18:18PM
mån 2011-06-13 klockan 11:52 -0400 skrev Simo Sorce:
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 17:41 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
That is not really how it is. /lib is for arch-dependent stuff including
the libraries of the
Lennart Poettering wrote:
What is the benefit of a separate libexecdir?
The distinction between stuff which belongs into %{_libdir}, which is
different for 32-bit vs. 64-bit, vs. stuff which always goes to the same
place and where only one copy should be installed.
Now it's possible to
On 06/14/2011 12:26 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
I spent some time yesterday talking with opensuse guys on irc, since
/usr/libexec has not been blessed by FHS
libexecdir is GNU Standards for ages (decades).
It's supposed to be kind of an auxilliary bindir, to hide away
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:14:45PM +0200, 80 wrote:
Hi,
I'm reviewing osc and osc-source_validators (osc is Opensuse Build
Service CLI, the latter a plugin to the former).
An issue arose about helpers script location:
1) Fedora packaging guidelines suggests helpers *should go*
/usr/libexec
Le 10/06/2011 18:56, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
I don't actually see this. Could you point me to the quote and section?
/usr/libincludes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that
are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts.
Le vendredi 10 juin 2011 à 21:23 +0200, Haïkel Guémar a écrit :
I spent some time yesterday talking with opensuse guys on irc, since
/usr/libexec has not been blessed by FHS, they won't move helpers from
/usr/lib which is FHS-compliant location.
I think that packaging guidelines should
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:23:54PM +0200, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Le 10/06/2011 18:56, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
I don't actually see this. Could you point me to the quote and section?
/usr/libincludes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that
are not intended to be executed
27 matches
Mail list logo
