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

Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:

> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are 
> under /usr/lib in Debian.  One example is /usr/lib/postfix 
> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,

I disagree. Why is it important to distinguish between shared libraries
and internal binaries (i.e. programs not supposed to be called directly
by a user)?

In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?

> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?

I don't think so. Both FHS 2.1 (referenced by the current Policy) and
FHS 2.3 (the latest FHS version) mandate /usr/lib (or a subdirectory)
for internal binaries.


Reply to: