| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:48:10AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory? |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not |
| 11 |
> > > libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ... afterall, |
| 14 |
> > this are internal binaries that end user should never run themselves |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I was going to quote the FHS to prove you were wrong.... but it turns |
| 17 |
> out that libexec/ has been pull out of it. And they seem to recommend a |
| 18 |
> libdir subdirectory... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
i know it, but i wasnt about to start quoting FHS on you :P |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
i was hoping we could scrounge up better reasons before resorting to |
| 23 |
throwing spec files at each other |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> In the end it doesn't really matter, but if we |
| 26 |
> change from libexec to lib/misc.. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
which is why i havent really started a thread on the topic already |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> will need to modify a lot of gnome package at least. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
yeah, a bunch of packages will need to be tweaked slightly, but i dont |
| 33 |
think it should be a big deal to do ... |
| 34 |
-mike |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives