On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:03 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > 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. I certainly feel that this is a worthy exception in the Guidelines. The use of libexec has good reason is is not going to change. rpmlint should take note of this (: -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
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
