On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:57:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> IMHO, libexecdir is not part of this at all... we already have:
>
> "If upstream's build scripts support the use of %{_libexecdir} then
> that is the most appropriate place to configure it (eg. passing
> --libexecdir=%{libexecdir}/%{name} to autotools configure). If
> upstream's build scripts do not support that, %{_libdir}/%{name} is a
> valid second choice. "
>
> It's all about the choice of lib instead of %{_libdir}.
The problem is that in the absence of libexec, there's no consistent
location to put helper binaries. %{_libdir}/%{name} doesn't work -
depending on distribution and architecture, your files are now either in
lib/name, lib32/name or lib64/name. Far from ideal. Lennart's position
that fundamental system infrastructure belongs in lib makes sense, since
there's absolutely no good reason for multilibing those components.
> I'd love to see this changed/fixed down the road, but it's a lot of
> documentation and moving around.
The situation right now is that it's impossible to write good
cross-distribution documentation. We should just do it for the sake of
future ease.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
