On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:24:35 +1100 Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote: > On 7 November 2011 11:26, Andreas Bombe <aeb@debian.org> wrote: > > The sftp-server on the other hand is provided by the package that > > also contains its only caller AFAICS. That should be > > in /usr/lib/$PACKAGE together with other package specific binary > > stuff — it doesn't make a difference whether it's linked, > > dlopen()ed or exec()ed. > > I think we are talking about /usr/lib, not /usr/lib/$PACKAGE (?). > > On my Ubuntu system /usr/lib already has some binaries, although some > might be just for backward compatibility: > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 2011-07-30 02:02 /usr/lib/sftp-server -> > openssh/sftp-server* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2011-10-07 15:20 /usr/lib/sendmail -> > ../sbin/sendmail* This is mandated by the fhs 2.x /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/fhs/fhs-2.3.txt.gz : > Specific Options > > For historical reasons, /usr/lib/sendmail must be a symbolic link > to /usr/sbin/ sendmail if the latter exists. [24] Removing it for 3.x was discussed, i don't remember the result offhand. > /usr/lib has so many files, maybe there might be performance reasons > for splitting it up, depending on what filesystem you have? FYI, /usr/libexec was discussed in deb-dev in 2005 [1], and performance was mentioned a couple of times ([2] being an example). You'll have to browse the thread to see the arguments for/against :) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00401.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00434.html 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