[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: possible mass-filing of bugs: many shared library packages contain binaries in usr/bin

>>"Roger" == Roger Leigh <rl117@york.ac.uk> 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   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: