On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 18:24, Ed Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:38:15 +0200 "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 15:28, Ed Hill wrote:
> > >
> > > 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).
>
>
> What reason(s) do you have for the preference ?
>
> If you use %{_libdir} then you will have to deal with multi-lib which,
> in my opinion, needlessly complicates paths in the environment-modules
> files.
>
> If you use %{_libexecdir} then you do *not* have to worry about any
> multilib issues -- they are automatically sorted out for you.
That is a good argument and I have considered it before. However,
libexec is non-standard and its purpose is to keep application-internal
binaries, not ones intended for user consumption. I think these points
outweigh the little convenience which using libexec provides.
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
