On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 15:28, Ed Hill wrote:
> 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.
It still feels like a bit of an abuse of libexec.
I prefer using %{_libdir}/%{name}(-%{version})/bin for this purpose.
Some packages do that (that is, keep their binaries there).
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
