On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 19:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't > > really seem to address the root problem. > > To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this > 'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results in one of two things: > > 1) we have to carry downstream patches or spec file stuff to relocate > things to /usr/libexec (and, possibly, tell other things that those > things have been relocated) - which is against > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects > > or: > > 2) we have to pressure upstream projects to needlessly complicate their > code and buildsystem with stuff like $libexecdir variables in their > autofoo, which resolve to /usr/libexec on Fedora/RHEL but just /usr/lib > or something on other distros - which is kind of an imposition on > upstreams > > All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically > defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly, > which gains us...what, exactly, over just putting them > in /usr/lib/(appname) or /usr/share/(appname) or whatever? I don't see > that libexec is actually giving us some kind of huge win to justify the > inconveniences. Hm, I missed the point that the exception is for lib/foo vs. %libdir/foo (arched vs. non-arched). That makes it a more complex three-way argument. But I think the point about libexecdir being pointless still stands. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
