On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 12:19 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > I would like to have clarification of whether using libexec is in > accordance with the Fedora Guidelines or if packages using it should be > changed. > > The usage of libexecdir for binary programs (not libraries) which are > not intended to be invoked by users, just other programs (gnome panel > applets are an example) Another example is GCC > is currently part of Fedora Core, the *BSDs, and > the GNU Coding Standards. > The FHS had libexecdir in a draft at one > point but apparently dropped it after a poll (The FHS mailing list > archives are currently inaccessible so I can't verify this) Debian has > been vehement in its following the letter of the FHS so they set > libexecdir to /usr/lib/pkgname through configure. This won't work for GCC GCC is using using: 1) /usr/lib/gcc/$target and 2) /usr/libexec/gcc/$target 1) contains target libraries/files 2) contains internal host-executables Setting libexecdir=$libdir would screw up things badly, because it would mix up host-executables and target-files. Now one could argue that 1) actually should be /usr/share/gcc/$target and 2) should be /usr/lib/gcc/$target ... I am inclined to agree, but changing this would be a major effort. > If we decide libexec > is not allowed we should consider doing the same with our %configure > macro. I am opposed to both. > There have been several email threads related to libexecdir vs the FHS > on the fedora lists. The last one I recall is here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/25433/ > > The thread brings up an issue which similar discussions on Debian > mailing lists fail to mention (because Debian is not multilib): On > multilib, you want one version of a helper program that matches the > wordsize of the main program, not one for 32 bits in /usr/lib and > another for 64 bits in /usr/lib64. Thus /usr/libexec to match /usr/bin. Exactly. The /usr/lib in 1) above needs to be $(prefix)/lib (=/usr/lib) not % _libdir. > There have been several people who have said they intended to bring the > libexec lack to the attention of the FHS but with their mailing list > inaccessible I'm unable to check whether any discussion reached the FHS. ... Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
