On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:23PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Heya,
>
> recommending %{_libdir}/%{name} will result in /usr/lib64/foo/ which is
> very broken.
>
> "Application private directories' are for binaries not for libraries and
> are not architecture dependent; they must live in /usr/lib, regardless
> of the architecture. It is also defined that way by LSB.
>
> In general, we recommend, and all new tools use already, the LSB
> defined /usr/lib/<pkgname>/ dir, because libexec/ is entirely forbidden
> to use on all other Linux distributions, and we want to share more with
> them.
>
> There would be no rush to get rid of libexec in Fedora, it's nothing
> wrong with it in general; but recommending it in the packaging
> guidelines seems very wrong to me, and against all common sense in
> upstream Linux development.
>
> It's a pretty useless Fedora'ism that serves no real purpose and is just
> different from everything else. It solves no problem that isn't already
> solved since many years.
>
Feel free to file this as a request on
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/newticket
Since this is removal of a guideline, no need for a draft, you can just use
these arguments for why you'd like to see it removed.
However, FPC has voted on the libexec at least twice (once for allowing it
and once for clarifying the intent regard architecture independent
programs). IIRC, the last time included all the same people who are on the
FPC now. I don't see any new arguments in your email so my estimate is that
a proposal to remove it is unlikely to pass.
-Toshio
Attachment:
pgpxRjb27hloF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
