On Tuesday 10 May 2005 15:02, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Chris Ricker wrote: > > 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.... > > It was included in an old version of FHS at the urging of the BSD folks. > It seems to have added no value, so I guess it was removed; it > definitely broke the lib/lib64 bit too. Why do you believe that it broke the lib/lib64 bit? AFAIK no-one has ever tested Postfix with parts of it running as 32bit and parts running as 64bit. Running it in such a manner seems likely to expose the user to previously undiscovered bugs while not providing any benefit that I can determine. If you wanted Postfix to load shared objects of different word sizes in different sub-processes then you would have a challenging task to determine which Postfix program loads which shared objects. Please give me an example of a program which has sub-processes that can run with different word sizes. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
