Re: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Martin Waitz <email@example.com> writes:
> hoi :)
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
> well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
The only reason we don't have it is because of petty bickering and
politics between the FHS folks (several years ago). There were few
technical objections to it on the FHS list, but it was dropped for
non-technical reasons. Given that the FHS is supposed to codify
existing practice, it should be in there on that count alone. Every
libexec-using package in Debian has been reconfigured not to use it;
upstreams do use it, and I'd like to use it myself.
I'd personally be very glad to have it, and would support using it in
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----