On Mon, 9 May 2005, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:42:52AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00401.html > > > > I started a discussion on debian-devel about /usr/libexec with the hope of > > getting more compatability between different distributions (different file > > locations are a pain for SE Linux developers). > > > > The conclusion of the discussion at the above URL is that /usr/libexec (as > > used in Fedora) is against the FHS and that we should get the FHS changed if > > we want other distributions to follow our example in this regard. > > > > What's the procedure for submitting a suggestion for a FHS change? > > Quoting http://www.pathname.com/fhs/: > The mailing list [1] is available to discuss interpretations of the > FHS document and of possible future changes and additions. All > proposals should be submitted as bugs on bugs.freestandards.org [2] > using the "FHS" component). To be regarded seriously, proposals > should include a unified patch to the sgml source (create the > attachment after you've opened the bug, please do not cut-and-paste > patches into comments). > > Whether the fact that various packages put files under /usr/libexec > reflects a policy we're following for Fedora or is just a mass oversight > is a different question. FWIW, what little can be found about libexec in FHS discussion archives at sourceforge suggests that libexec has been deliberately excluded in the past on the grounds of not really serving a purpose.... later, chris -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
