Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
> therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
> Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would have to pay the
> (far larger) initial cost of moving everything around.

It's a very easily spread cost.  Indeed, merely making it permissible
for maintainers to use libexec when upstream does would be a help.

You're not counting that there is a cost to each niggling little
idiosyncracy where Debian differs from upstream.  Most of the cost of
managing upgrades from upstream and the like is re-porting all those
little niggling bits.