[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Pre-Depends for Xorg 7.0

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various
> > symlinks (/usr/include/X11, /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11) to the appropriate
> > directories in /usr/X11R6. For 7.0, we need to make those symlinks become
> > actual directories. 
> I thought that the idea instead was to move everything directly into
> /usr/include, /usr/bin, and /usr/lib. Why keep the X11 subdirectories?

/usr/include/X11 is obvious enough (#include <X11/*>).

There is some software that contains hardcoded paths to executables in
/usr/bin/X11; for example, sshd hardcodes the path to
/usr/bin/X11/xauth. sshd stats whatever it thinks is the location of
xauth to find out whether it can do X11 forwarding, so it's not entirely
trivial to unhardcode this path.

> Note that the FHS has this to say about /usr/bin/X11 and friends:
>   In general, software must not be installed or managed via the above symbolic
>   links. They are intended for utilization by users only. 

I always interpreted this as meaning that packages couldn't install
files there via the symlink, but that it was OK to refer to files via
the symlink.

Current Ubuntu makes /usr/bin/X11 a symlink to . (i.e. /usr/bin) which
means that this all continues to work fine after xauth and friends move
to /usr/bin. David's paragraph above implies something different. David?

> Also, moving stuff to /usr/bin/X11 and making it a real directory will
> break things for anyone having /usr/X11R6/bin in their path instead. One
> example of such a path is in pbuilder.

That much would continue to work fine if binaries were moved to /usr/bin
rather than /usr/X11R6/bin, and with a /usr/bin/X11 -> . symlink paths
hardcoded as specified in policy (11.8.7, "Installation directory
issues") would continue to work as well.

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: