Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> 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.
I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
appeal to me (and however easily spread that cost, it's a lot of work --
it's more work than the /usr/doc migration, and that was a PITA). I do
care a *lot* about consistency. Having a mix of /usr/lib and /usr/libexec
is, in my opinion, significantly worse than either one or the other.
Yes, every divergence from upstream is more work. That's why I believe
Debian should pick a standard and follow it rather than going our own
direction. Consistency is extremely important, more important in my
opinion than following the layout of upstream -- that's one of the things
that makes Debian such a high-quality distribution. However, we should at
least give upstream a fighting chance to already be doing things the way
we want. The best chance we have of that is to use the most widely
adopted existing standard, and right now that's FHS, and FHS doesn't have
/usr/libexec.
That pretty much closes the conversation as far as I'm concerned (not that
I have any grand say or anything, just letting you know where I personally
come from). If you got FHS changed to mandate /usr/libexec, I'd support
changing all of Debian to follow, even with the transition cost. I would,
however, argue strongly against FHS saying that either one is allowed, for
the reason stated above.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: