On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 14:42 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > TK> I would like to have clarification of whether using libexec is in > TK> accordance with the Fedora Guidelines or if packages using it > TK> should be changed. > > I've asked previously on IRC and was told that it was OK. Let me see > if I still have the logs. Oh, it was you who answered me. So this > isn't terribly useful, but since I dug it up.... > Yes. I've been working under the impression that libexec is fine because the Core packagers have expressed good reasons for it to exist... but rpmlint complains about it. Ville's position (correct IMO) is that rpmlint should follow FHS unless there's a specific exception in the Guidelines so it seemed time to formalize whether it's allowed or not. > [Tue May 16 2006] [15:25:38] <fedorared> > rpmlint does complain about libexec however. > > [Tue May 16 2006] [15:25:40] <ixs> > /usr/libexec should be fine for binaries and stuff not directly > called by the user. according to FHS at least. Hmm.. Is Andreas on this list? I don't see where the FHS allows for this. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
