Re: standard for executable files under /usr/share
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 04:06:10PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:29, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Why is this a problem but not binaries under /usr/lib?
>
> There are less of them.
>
> Under /usr/lib:
> /usr/lib/man-db/.+
> /usr/lib/apt/methods/.+
> /usr/lib/dpkg/.*
>
> Those are the only ones that need to be labeled.
Right offhand I can think of /usr/lib/trn.*/.+, which perhaps you
haven't noticed since it's in non-free. I'm sure there are others.
/usr/lib and /usr/share are perfectly legitimate places to put private
executables; I'm not sure I like the notion of complicating the
namespace further just because some people initially assume they only
contain non-executable data and libraries.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: