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

Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:08:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:53:48PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> immo vero scripsit:
> > > > The problem is that we don't have /libexec in Debian GNU/Linux (we do
> > > > in GNU/Hurd). I really think that's a bug and those binaries in these
> > > > library packages probably belong in /libexec.
> > > 
> > > No, most of them are just misplaced binary files.
> > > Having a /libexec is not related at all to the problem described here.
> > 
> > Of course it is, if they are only called by libraries (or other
> > binaries), they should be in /libexec instead of /bin. And I'm not
> > sure it's wrong to ship them in a library packages then.
> You're missing the point. What happens when the user wants to install
> two versions of a library package simultaneously?

If those libraries can use the same binary then it should be in a
seperate package. But if the binary is thightly bound to the library,
then it should be in the same package (probably with a version number
on it so you can install multiple versions of the same library).

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgp0H8V0CwVJ3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: