Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> You disagree because a Hurd developers says it? That's funny.
No, the attitude that some Hurd people show annoys me somewhat. So
far I haven't seen a good argument from anyone for a libexec
hierarchy except `performance reasons'.
> 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.
Yes, and Debian does not use GNU Coding Standards everywhere. Using the
FHS is just one place where we disagree, and if you start looking I bet
there are others as well.
> 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.
The fact that someone else has something is not a good argument. They
may just have it for legacy reasons, or might have been misguided. We
should make that decision ourselves instead of following others.
> 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 I still have not seen a single argument to support that statement.
/firstname.lastname@example.org This space intentionally left occupied \
| email@example.com http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com