On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:24:08AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
> > > > same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
> > > > with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
> > > You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
> > > and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
> >
> > I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable to
> > the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
> > libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case here.
> >
>
> That would indeed be better, I guess.
> It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
> missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
>
> (...)
> 9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
> The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to create
> a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
> (...)
>
> I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint issue.
>
I just got back from FUDCon Panama so I may have read a few things too
quickly... What's the use case for these programs?
Just for scripts?
For users that are used to plan9 behaviour and want to use them from their
shell?
Either %{_libdir}/plan9 or %{_libdir}/plan9 + %{_libexecdir}/plan9 split
seem that they may fit the bill here. One of those may be more right than
the other depending on what use case we're trying to support.
Subdirectories of %{_bindir} really should not be used in Fedora.
-Toshio
Attachment:
pgpu_Y40LaqWR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
