On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Junichi" == Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes: > Junichi> I think this was discussed enough in -devel already, but > Junichi> some good points about /libexec was given. I've noticed > Junichi> that some known good practice is not documented in policy, > Firstly, there is no such consensus that I can see. Secondly, > I have not seen any technical reason to make Packages > change. Did you look at the patch, or just read the introduction? Junichi just seems to be codifying current practice ("If you want to include support stuff in a lib* package, put it in /usr/lib/<pkgname> so when you install libfoo2, you don't get file conflicts"), not introducing random new stuff ("Put stuff in /libexec! Yay hurd! Yay BSD! Boo FHS!"). Are there any packages that don't comply with the patch, that don't already have problems with the fourth paragraph of section 11.3? > Junichi> and I propose the following patch: > This is way premature. Patches are almost always a good thing, even if they're completely unsuitable to be applied. This one doesn't seem particularly unsuitable. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgpnX93GAGOGt.pgp
Description: PGP signature