Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin
>>"Roger" == Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > I think it's better to not have binaries in /usr/lib.
>> Why? Do you want to move scripts into /etcexec as well?
Roger> You asked for what the real purpose of libexec was, and in another
Roger> thread it was suggested that search times would be reduced, which is
Roger> not the point, IMHO.
Roger> On a system, we have (very generally):
Roger> bin and sbin for programs invokable by users
This affects users directly, and has historically been used as
a way of not cluttering up the programs accessible to a role, to make
sure one changes roles for tasks that can damage a system, and
perhaps to prevent confusion for novice users on the learning curve.
Roger> lib for libraries. I'll include binaries which may be either linked
Roger> in at run-time or dlopened here, as well as libraries
Roger> used by languages other than C, e.g. perl, python.
Indeed, lib contains all kindfs of things that are needed by
programs that I do not need to know about directly, and can not be
shared with other systems (platform dependent format, in various
ways). I do not really care whether these are shared libraries
)loaded into the same address space) or external executables (in a
different address space with some kind of IPC going on)
Further distinction in what resides in the /usr/lib/ area does
not impact most humans most of the time; and thus, is perhaps
gratuitous distinction that is not needed
Why cant we have libperl, libruby, libexecsh, libeexecbash,
libexecksh? and so on? Because the distinctions serve no purpose, and
adding complexity unless it is required is detrimental.
Indeed, the one pro of having libexec that no one seems to
have mentioned is mount options: if /etc/libexec is a separate file
system, I can mount /lib with noexec, and only have the exec mount
flag for libexec, and it adds a little more hassles to a croacker who
has broken in. I am not sure whether this is enough to succefully
advocate for the inclusion of libexec.
Roger> In short, I agree that libexec is `not essential', like you
Roger> said previously, but then again separating bin and sbin is not
Roger> essential either. It does clean up the cruft that is dumped
Roger> in /usr/lib though, and I would like to see it used for just
Roger> this reason.
Why is it cruft? There are programs used by something I
interact with on my system, but which I never have to deal with
directly. I _like_ all such stuff being swept into the same are of the
I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do will
encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended, and I don't care
if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United
States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as
another. Ford Frick, National League President, reacting to a
threatened strike by some Cardinal players in 1947 if Jackie Robinson
took the field against St. Louis. The Cardinals backed down and
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com