On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >> > You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
> >> >
> >> > So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the
> >> > author explains the rationale for putting gettext.sh in /usr/bin.
> >> Sorry, I did not find relevant information there.
> >> Does the bug report log explain somewhere whether it is actually ok to
> >> place this file in /usr/bin on a Debian system?
> >
> > Sorry, I really meant non-bug #284637.
> >
> > Debian does not have a designated directory for shell script function
> > libraries which is in the PATH by default, this is why /usr/bin should
> > be ok.
>
> Since, as stated in the thread, it is never to be called (and can
> never be executed anyway) by a user the file should not pollute the
> PATH.
>
> All other packages have their script sniplets in /usr/share/<package>,
> e.g. devscripts, debhelper, debian-cd, ...
>
> Maybe there should be a /usr/share/bin for architecture independent
> binaries (i.e. scripts) but this doesn't look like a candidate for any
> bin directory.
Oddly enough, this is exactly what the "libexec" directories are for. Which
would explain why the maintainer might thing there was no place for them,
as Debian does not currently support or use libexec...
However, barring that, I concur that /usr/share/<package> is probably the
right place, or /usr/lib if someone managed to write an arch-sensitive
shell script (which I would be impressed by, but I guess you could always
have binary text or something...)
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature