Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
email@example.com (Jeroen Dekkers) writes:
> I think we should put those binaries in libexec (as already done by
> the Hurd and all other GNU packages, it's an example, so it's
> relevent). Then we should put in policy that library packages can have
> binaries in libexec. But I'm afraid that won't be possible because
> policy depends on a standard created by people who don't know what
> they are doing.
I think you're completely missing the point. Whether Debian uses libexec or
not is irrelevant to the problem at hand.
An executable delivered in a library package is problematic because we're
assuming the executable has a non-versioned pathname, and you can't have two
packages installed at the same time that deliver the same file. We want to be
able to have more than one version of any given shared library installed at
the same time, which works because the shared library files *do* use versioned
So, the easy solution is to break the executables into a utility package
distinct from the shared library packages (what Debian typically does for the
shared lib plus utility case), or you can give every file delivered in the
package a versioned pathname.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com