Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 11:30:58AM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> >On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:27:32PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> >> There are some shared library packages that contain binaries in usr/bin
> >> It is generally a bad idea, considering co-installation of
> >> shared libraries with different sonames.
> ><list of packages>
> >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.
> How is The Hurd at all relevant to placement of *-config scripts?
> Well done, Captain Irrelevant.
> To the sane members of this list: I suggest using the alternatives system
> for *-config.
I do not agree at all. Many use -bin package to include binary associated with
a library, and i think that this is the most linear approach. I may not want
and/or need a -bin package because (for example) i do not use it in my
program. So why should i install it? OTOH, why not to use /usr/lib/<lib>/
instead of /libexec?
More over: i do not see the point with The Hurd. Debian is neither Hurd, nor
Linux. We are above the kernel, so if we decide not to use /libexec we will
apply our decision with any system. Debian must be consistent. Hurd port must
comply with the policy as long as Debian decides it.
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they
local LANG="it_IT@euro" | don't depend on the language.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org