FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-09-2012, 01:09 PM
Kay Sievers
 
Default broken recommendation for libexecdir

Heya,

recommending %{_libdir}/%{name} will result in /usr/lib64/foo/ which is
very broken.

"Application private directories' are for binaries not for libraries and
are not architecture dependent; they must live in /usr/lib, regardless
of the architecture. It is also defined that way by LSB.

In general, we recommend, and all new tools use already, the LSB
defined /usr/lib/<pkgname>/ dir, because libexec/ is entirely forbidden
to use on all other Linux distributions, and we want to share more with
them.

There would be no rush to get rid of libexec in Fedora, it's nothing
wrong with it in general; but recommending it in the packaging
guidelines seems very wrong to me, and against all common sense in
upstream Linux development.

It's a pretty useless Fedora'ism that serves no real purpose and is just
different from everything else. It solves no problem that isn't already
solved since many years.

Thanks,
Kay


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-09-2012, 04:29 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default broken recommendation for libexecdir

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:23PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Heya,
>
> recommending %{_libdir}/%{name} will result in /usr/lib64/foo/ which is
> very broken.
>
> "Application private directories' are for binaries not for libraries and
> are not architecture dependent; they must live in /usr/lib, regardless
> of the architecture. It is also defined that way by LSB.
>
> In general, we recommend, and all new tools use already, the LSB
> defined /usr/lib/<pkgname>/ dir, because libexec/ is entirely forbidden
> to use on all other Linux distributions, and we want to share more with
> them.
>
> There would be no rush to get rid of libexec in Fedora, it's nothing
> wrong with it in general; but recommending it in the packaging
> guidelines seems very wrong to me, and against all common sense in
> upstream Linux development.
>
> It's a pretty useless Fedora'ism that serves no real purpose and is just
> different from everything else. It solves no problem that isn't already
> solved since many years.
>
Feel free to file this as a request on
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/newticket

Since this is removal of a guideline, no need for a draft, you can just use
these arguments for why you'd like to see it removed.

However, FPC has voted on the libexec at least twice (once for allowing it
and once for clarifying the intent regard architecture independent
programs). IIRC, the last time included all the same people who are on the
FPC now. I don't see any new arguments in your email so my estimate is that
a proposal to remove it is unlikely to pass.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:35 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org