| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:27:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> > >> Also, should Gentoo (Linux) never break with tradition even if |
| 3 |
> > >> somethings are better elsewhere? |
| 4 |
> > > no, there is no "innovation" here nor any incentive to do so. i also |
| 5 |
> > > personally dont believe in /usr/libexec/, so i'm not going to randomly be |
| 6 |
> > > convinced by /libexec/ in the meantime. |
| 7 |
> > The "innovation" here being shell scripts and text files are not 32/64 |
| 8 |
> > bit dependent and thus don't belong in a directory clearly marked as such. |
| 9 |
> ABI is really not the driving force behind libexec vs lib, nor does it really |
| 10 |
> matter here. openrc isnt a multilib package nor does it need to be. |
| 11 |
Even while it isn't a multilib package, there's precedent to move stuff |
| 12 |
out of /lib (/usr/lib etc). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
One of the reasons to move stuff OUT of /lib are all the profiles where |
| 15 |
SYMLINK_LIB is disabled AND LIBDIR_${arch} != "lib". On non-multilib |
| 16 |
systems (so there is no lib23/64) or multilib systems where /lib is the |
| 17 |
correct location, then any test against /lib/rc/version would be fine. |
| 18 |
On anything else, it's not. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Having it in a different location from upstream (OpenRC), means that any |
| 21 |
other distributions using OpenRC's /libexec/rc/version location would |
| 22 |
need to patch all their init.d scripts. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
vapier: I take it by this entire discussion that you aren't going take |
| 25 |
the rest of OpenRC's move of scripts to /libexec either? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
| 30 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 31 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives