Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> libexec, IMHO, serves to tidy up the filesystem by only using lib for
> libraries, and putting extra binaries into libexec/<package>. It
> cleans up lib, which is (again IMHO) needed. Having a place to put
> the scripts will also be an incentive to move the remaining shareable
> data under share.
Hmm, but it does not achieve that. lib will still contain all kinds of
architecture-dependent data, such as the dictionaries in /usr/lib/ispell
and the stuff in /usr/lib/megahal. Separating the executables will only
address one category of many.
Is it really so bad that lib is a collection of stuff? All of it has
the same properties wrt sharability and user interface requirements
(i.e. none), and keeping everything in one hierarchy is simpler than
splitting it (and thus having to worry about where borderline cases
> In short, I agree that libexec is `not essential', like you said
> previously, but then again separating bin and sbin is not essential
> either. It does clean up the cruft that is dumped in /usr/lib
> though, and I would like to see it used for just this reason.
The difference between bin and sbin is visible to the user, however.
It is functional. I see no function for libexec.
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org