On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:57:46 +0300 Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 21:15 -0400, Ed Hill wrote:
> >
> > *Please* stop suggesting alternatives.
> >
> > Alternatives is a total failure for user-space applications that are
> > not *completely* generic and 100% interchangeable. Lets illustrate
> > this point with three use cases:
> >
> > Please notice that modules (aka "environment modules") is a
> > perfectly workable solution for all the above scenarios and it does
> > not require any help from an admin (or root/sudo perms).
>
>
> Exactly. Now the question still remains where to hide these. OpenMPI
> puts its wrappers in /usr/share/openmpi, but /usr/share is for
> architecture independent data.
>
> Since /usr/bin doesn't have any subdirectories to me it seems quite
> straightforward to use /usr/libexec/%{name} to "hide" the binaries.
> They are then automatically added to the path upon loading the module.
>
> My interpretation is that this is OK according to the Packaging
> guidelines: "Libexecdir (aka, /usr/libexec on Fedora systems) should
> be used as the directory for executable programs that are designed
> primarily to be run by other programs rather than by users."
Yes!!!
And +1 for a convention such as
/usr/libexec/%{name}
/usr/libexec/%{name}-%{version}
that allows both names and, if desired, versions.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed@xxxxxxx | http://eh3.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
