[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:

> 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.


Reply to: