Re: RES: /usr/lib vs /usr/libexec
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:21:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>
> > For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> > I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
>
> Since the FHS tries to be responsive to what different distributions
> want, this doesn't help in the question: Should Debian lobby to get
> the FHS changed.
That is an interesting question.
Is there already Debian policy or custom that has bearing on this question ?
or is this best left to the individual, or until a need presents ?
Debian is growing into more than just a Linux system,
perhaps the FHS could grow with it ?
It seems to me that a good part of making any such change viable,
is in the implementation and at the tool level.
As things currently stand would it be a bug to ship a package that simply
provides the directory /usr/libexec ? or even gives you then option of
a symlink at install time ? how does the Debian GNU/Hurd get round this ?
as it goes:
(the option for) distinct / and /usr makes sense to me
don't like /etc clutter. perhaps /etc/usr or /usr/etc could be good ?
if /usr/lib isn't an index for the runtime linker, what is it ?
So while I agree that /usr/lib seems to be overloaded unnecessarily,
at the end of the day, even if we had /usr/libexec/ an occassional file
misfiled in /usr/lib/ would only be a very minor bug? or is there other
value to obtained further down the road in this program of reform ?
Regards,
Paddy
--
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Reply to: