On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 05:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "DL" == Denis Leroy <denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> DL> I would recommend %{_libexecdir}/%{name} which seems fairly
> DL> common. Or possibly %{_libexecdir}/%{name}-%{ABI} or
> DL> %{name}-%{version}, but does it really make sense to have multiple
> DL> versions installed at the same time ?
>
> My understanding of the purpose of libexec is that this is fine for
> internal binaries, but not for binaries which are expected to be run
> by the end user.
Right.
> However, I don't think libexec is mentioned by FHS
> so I guess its up to us (FPC) to make a decision.
libexecdir has its origin in the GNU-standards.
cf. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Directory-Variables
> What other options are
> there? Something under /usr/lib?
Yes, this had been the traditional substitute being used by the FHS and
by RH-based distros.
> Does multilib come into this decision at all?
Normally not. The files inside of libexec are supposed to be
executables/applications, i.e. they normally don't make much sense to be
multilib'ed, but should be treated analogous to files in $(bindir).
Also, using $(libdir) would render application search paths
"arch-dependent", while using $(libexec) would be arch-independent.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
