Re: libexec in glibc
Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeff Bailey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > The issues is that by Debian policy, all Debian ports must follow the
> > > FHS. The same is true of the FreeBSD and NetBSD ports (I only noticed
> > > this because of the patch to support FreeBSD).
> > >
> > > Certainly after */libexec is added into the FHS, we can add it back
> > > in. We would have to recompile a whole lot of Debian anyway, so doing
> > > glibc on top of that shouldn't be a problem.
> > We need not change anything now in Hurd systems. We do not need to
> > worry about matching aspects of policy that we expect to change by the
> > time we actually release. And, we expect that FHS will have, by that
> > time, a Hurd-specific annex that covers this particular point.
> Why keep it Hurd-specific? If would be equally useful on Linux too (I
> would very much like to see libexec on GNU/Linux if and when the FHS
> adopts it).
Among other things, politics. It's better to accomplish what we know
we can accomplish, rather than tilting at windmills. Someday,
perhaps, but for now, just a small step.