Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:46:43PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:37:06PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > It seems like Policy would pick this up if the FHS itself was amended, by
> > default. Now, since as we all know, Policy Isn't A Beating Stick (tm), the
> > migration to libexec, while a Good Thing in principle (if and when it makes
> > it into the FHS) would need to be treated much like the doc -> share stuff
> > that we've been working on for... two releases now, is it?
> Not really. docs are a different case because people actually need to go
> looking for & find them. If we have a release with things spread between
> /lib and /libexec it's not as big a deal as telling people "usually your
> docs are under /usr/doc, but you might want to check /usr/share/doc
> also. This is documented in the docs. :)" As long as programs can find
> their *own* libexec's and dependencies are handled properly, I don't see
> why a partial libexec transition is impossible.
You also don't have the symlink evil to cope with in the case of
libexec; in particular, since /usr/lib will never be symlinked to
/usr/libexec (!), you don't have to say "the transition must be complete
by this release or the whole thing will be delayed by one more release
Colin Watson [email@example.com]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com