| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory? |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not |
| 10 |
> > libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ... afterall, |
| 13 |
> this are internal binaries that end user should never run themselves |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I was going to quote the FHS to prove you were wrong.... but it turns |
| 16 |
out that libexec/ has been pull out of it. And they seem to recommend a |
| 17 |
libdir subdirectory... In the end it doesn't really matter, but if we |
| 18 |
change from libexec to lib/misc.. will need to modify a lot of gnome |
| 19 |
package at least. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-May/msg00240.html |
| 23 |
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00401.html |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Olivier Crête |
| 27 |
tester@g.o |
Archives