On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:51:14 +0000
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Clint Adams writes ("Re: directory under /usr/bin -- Ok or not?"):
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 09:46:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I don?t think Debian requests FHS to document something before we
> > > can use it. The real problem with the bizarre GNU invention that
> > > is /usr/libexec is that nobody knows what it is here for.
> >
> > Allegedly it was going to be in the FHS but a couple of Debian
> > loudmouths whined until it was omitted for no good reason.
>
> As one of those loudmouths:
>
> 1. There is still no good reason for libexec.
>
> 2. Obviously the right answer with a standardisation decision you
> don't like is to wait until (a) it's implemented everywhere and
> (b) the people you originally disagreed with have moved on to other
> things, and then to change the standard to be the way you always
> wanted it to be.
A few months ago when libexec was brought up on the FHS list [1], I
couldn't find any list archive with the original discussions. Other
then the bugzilla (which is unfortunately MIA atm...) do you know where
people can look for the last round of discussion? Without any of the
people originally involved in fhs 2.x being involved in 3.x (TTBOMK)
and no historical reference its not entirely surprising that a different
choice is being made.
(Note here I'm not taking a stance on if it should be in or not).
[1] elseware in the thread i saw a sourceforce fhs-discuss list. Is
that the one? If so I'll go digging there.
thanks,
kk
--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature