Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
>
> On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
> programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs that
> don't.
>
>> 32bit mozilla with flash plugin and 64bit mozilla without. A lot of
>> people seem to want that.
>
> Bill's idea seems to work in that case. Although as you would need different
> names in /usr/bin it might make sense to just name the libexec files with the
> same extension as the file in /usr/bin that launches them.
What about mips O32, N32, N64 abis?
/lib, /lib32 and /lib64?
What about i386 knetbsd and linux?
The multiarch /arch-os/ path is already present in the toolchain for
many things including include files and libs and works for all cases
of multiarch in a clean way. The lib{,32,64} subdirs are different on
every arch, confusing and insuffient for the bsd case.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: