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

Re: standard for executable files under /usr/share

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:50:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:23:44PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It seems that many packages have binaries under /usr/share, here are a few 
> > examples of regex's that match Debian-specific binaries under /usr/share:
> > /usr/share/debiandoc-sgml/saspconvert
> > /usr/share/lintian/.+
> > /usr/share/kernel-package/.+
> > /usr/share/bug/[^/]+
> > /usr/share/console/getkmapchoice\.pl
> > /usr/share/openoffice\.org-debian-files/install-hook
> > /usr/share/dlint/digparse
> > /usr/share/gimp/1.2/user_install
> > 
> > The problem for me is that as part of my work maintaining Debian packages of 
> > SE Linux policy I have to track all of these.
> > 
> > The problem for SE Linux users is that there are undoubtably many I have not 
> > discovered yet which will therefore have the wrong security type on a default 
> > setup and not work.
> > 
> > The problem for the people who maintain such packages is that some SE Linux 
> > users may file bug reports against your package by mistake instead of 
> > informing me.
> > 
> > I suggest that we have a standard for names of such files.  Something like 
> > /usr/share/package/bin/.+ would do well.  That will make things a lot easier 
> > for SE Linux users (and users of other security systems).
> Why not simply /usr/share/bin ?

Isn't the point of having them in /usr/share/package/ in the first place
that they're executables *specific to the package in question* that
would not be called directly by a user or by other applications?
/usr/share/bin is a bad idea -- if /usr/share/bin is acceptable, this is
a certain sign that the binaries in question actually belong in

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Reply to: