[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 Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Um, no.  The people involved didn't understand what it was for, and
> > have in several cases now had little quandaries "where should we put
> > this?" questions because they made a gap.
> I disagree with that statement. This is almost beginning to sound like
> hurd developers have a monopoly on good sense.

You disagree because a Hurd developers says it? That's funny.

You are mixing GNU and the Hurd. /libexec is part of the GNU Coding
Standards which means libexec should be used for all GNU packages. The
Hurd is just one GNU package. The monopoly would go to GNU, if it
would exist at all.

But we didn't invent libexec. The BSDs have it too and I would not be
surprised a lot of non-free Unix variants have it too. Only the FHS
doesn't have it because they had no clue why it existed and ignored
all existing systems which already has it. 

And now Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian *BSD should fix all the packages,
change them from doing the wrong thing instead of the right thing,
because the FHS developers have no clue what they are doing? That
sounds a bit stupid to me.

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: pgphkA99dT0PY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: