Re: [FHS] helper scripts location

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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."
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA


> Additionally, the GNU Coding standards explicitly prohibit this (to be clear
> the GNU coding standards are not definitive for Fedora like the FHS is at
> this time; I'm including the quotation to show what current best practices
> are in this regard):
> """
> ‘libdir’
> The directory for object files and libraries of object code. Do not install
> executables here, they probably ought to go in ‘$(libexecdir)’ instead.
> """
>
> At similar weight is the fact that some programs currently violate the GNU
> Coding Standard recommendation here.  However, I can't think of one of those
> off the top of my head that is a unix-y program so those may be more
> workaround than paradigm setters.
>
good to know

> Preference-wise, I would say $LIBEXECDIR; settable at build time to
> /usr/libexec on Fedora-style distros and /usr/lib on Debian-style distros is
> the best method here.  Since we're talking scripts (architecture
> independent), /usr/share may also make sense but I'm not a big fan of it.
> If you can find me the piece of FHS that explicitly allows shell scripts in
> /usr/lib I can figure out how that compares to using /usr/lib.
>
>
> -Toshio
+1

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 clarify this point, either we
enforce the use of /usr/libexec (and current packages should be fixed)
or we explicitely allow /usr/lib and/or /usr/share for helpers.

Personnally, i don't feel like burdening the reviewee with a non-FHS
compliant patch that has little chance to be upstreamed if it's not
mandatory.

H.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux