Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
<brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> >> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
> >
> > On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64
> > for programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
> > that don't.
> >
> >> 32bit mozilla with flash plugin and 64bit mozilla without. A lot of
> >> people seem to want that.
> >
> > Bill's idea seems to work in that case. Although as you would need
> > different names in /usr/bin it might make sense to just name the libexec
> > files with the same extension as the file in /usr/bin that launches them.
>
> What about mips O32, N32, N64 abis?
>
> /lib, /lib32 and /lib64?
If you currently have /lib, /lib32, and /lib64 on MIPS then with Bill's idea
those directories could be used for three different versions of Mozilla.
> What about i386 knetbsd and linux?
What is required there?
> The multiarch /arch-os/ path is already present in the toolchain for
> many things including include files and libs and works for all cases
> of multiarch in a clean way. The lib{,32,64} subdirs are different on
> every arch, confusing and insuffient for the bsd case.
Surely for every case in which multiple versions of binaries are needed we
also need multiple versions of libs. So having multiple /usr/lib directories
should do.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: