Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <martin@zero-based.org> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
>>
>>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>>> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
>>
>> I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /usr/bin (or /lib and
>> /usr/lib). IMHO, the only reason for /bin and /lib is that some programs
>> and libraries need to be available before is /usr is mounted.
>
> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
That depends on how you get rid of it, i.e. if you get rid of /usr/bin
in favor of /bin or vice versa. :)
/usr can be shared between machines, which is IMHO a reason to have
as many executables and libraries as possible under /usr. If /usr is
shared, there is also a "before /usr is mounted."
> The difference is that libraries are also generic things that are
> shared by many programs, and searched by the linker, whereas
> executables are not.
I see your point, and I agree that this would be a good way to separate
things. However, the separation should then indeed be based on whether a
binary is used by many programs or not, and not on whether it is a
library or an executable.
For example, the mozilla-firefox package contains some libraries (*.so
files) which are specific to firefox and which are not used by any other
program. IMHO, these should _not_ be in (or under) /usr/lib in such a
scheme.
That said, I don't feel strongly enough about this to lobby for an FHS
change.
Martin
Reply to: