[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FSSTND Questions regarding /usr/{,local}/{share,libexec}/ ?

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@rosebud.sps.queensu.ca> writes:

> The octave package defaults to using $PREFIX/libexec for its version of the
> info pager, and $PREFIX/share for binary-independent files (such as all the
> matlab-alike .m files). I have two questions related to this :

libexec and share are going to be present in the FHS.  I was planning
on releasing it last weekend, but the disk drive on pathname.com
crashed and I didn't get it replaced before I had to leave for
LinuxExpo (I'm typing from my hotel room).

In FHS, libexec should only be used for "internal binaries", share for
architecture-independent files.

The question as to when FHS should be used instead of FSSTND should be
answered by Brian White.  I would recommmend that Debian begin
transition when it gets released (Friday night or Monday night,
probably).  If Brian wishes to, he can delegate the pathname decisions
to me -- I'm not going to be too forceful with the new standard.

>  * I currently use both 'as is'. Now, /usr/share seems to be used by other 
>    packages so I guess that's fine. But shall I change /usr/libexec/octave/ 
>    to /usr/lib/octave (this directory already exists) as eg the emacs 
>    package does?

Only if you're going for FSSTND compliance instead of FHS compliance.

>  * The default for site-local files is $PREFIX/share/octave/site/m/  Because
>    Debian uses PREFIX=/usr, this is not below /usr/local as it should be.
>    I intend to change this as a run-time option. [1] Now, shall I set
>    LOADPATH to 
> 	/usr/local/share/octave/site-m		(new use of share)
>    or to
> 	/usr/local/lib/octave/site-m		(a la emacs,perl,tex,...)
>    I like /usr/local/share better as these are indeed binary-independent
>    files.

/usr/local/share is definitely better than /usr/share.


Reply to: