On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 01:54:57AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of exceptions. > > > libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in libexec, > > > unit files in share, I think allowing systemd to dump everything (and in > > > particular 64-bit stuff) to lib is setting a horrible precedent. > > > > Unit files need to be in /, so moving them would either require creating > > a /share for distributions that haven't merged /usr or putting up with > > inconsistent naming between distributions. Consistency is a virtue and > > the chances of getting anyone else to accept /share are minimal, so /lib > > it is. Meanwhile, libexec's not part of any non-draft version of the FHS > > and doesn't exist on most other distributions, and the path of the > > helper binaries has ended up in a bunch of unit files. So, similar > > problems. > > > > What benefit do you see in modifying systemd? > > Can someone summarise the trac ticket: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/158 > > and the above reply, because none of it seems to make much sense to me. > The effect of this is: FPC will write into the Guidelines (probably where libexec is mentioned since that's where the note about being able to use %{_libdir} as an alternative to %{_libexecdir} is ) that the systemd helper binaries and unitfiles have been granted a special exception to install into %{_prefix}/lib instead of %{_libdir}. This should mean that nothing changes in the systemd packages or in packages which provide unitfiles. They are already installing into those locations. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpBUSoxnV6bU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
