[gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,
little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official status 
of /usr/libexec directory?

I was told on IRC time ago to prefer /usr/$(get_libdir)/misc to libexec 
because that's already ABI-specified... but I'm not really sure.
/usr/libexec is already used by many upstream packages, starting from FreeBSD 
itself, and while it's true that /usr/$(get_libdir)/misc is ABI safe, I don't 
really like thinking of moving executables in a subdirectory of lib for ABI's 
sake.. or we'll end up having /usr/$(get_libdir)/binaries instead 
of /usr/bin ...

So, as the documentation about that seems not to be clear, what's its status?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?

there is none afaik ... it's something we've been leaving alone for
the time being because it hasnt been that critical of an issue

personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 437 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
>
> personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc

Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not
libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
> >
> > personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
> 
> Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not
> libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin.

i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a specific
subdir of lib

libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ... afterall,
this are internal binaries that end user should never run themselves
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +0000
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
> specific subdir of lib
> 
> libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ...
> afterall, this are internal binaries that end user should never
> run themselves

Random thought of the day: why not /usr/bin/misc?

--
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
> > >
> > > personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
> > 
> > Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not
> > libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin.
>
> libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ... afterall,
> this are internal binaries that end user should never run themselves

I was going to quote the FHS to prove you were wrong.... but it turns
out that libexec/ has been pull out of it. And they seem to recommend a
libdir subdirectory... In the end it doesn't really matter, but if we
change from libexec to lib/misc.. will need to modify a lot of gnome
package at least.


https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-May/msg00240.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00401.html

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:41:20PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +0000
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
> > specific subdir of lib
> > 
> > libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ...
> > afterall, this are internal binaries that end user should never
> > run themselves
> 
> Random thought of the day: why not /usr/bin/misc?

subdirs are not allowed in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin or any other bin dir
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:48:10AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > > > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
> > > >
> > > > personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
> > > 
> > > Why move the libexec content to libdir? They are all executables, not
> > > libraries. Its in the same category as /usr/bin.
> >
> > libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ... afterall,
> > this are internal binaries that end user should never run themselves
> 
> I was going to quote the FHS to prove you were wrong.... but it turns
> out that libexec/ has been pull out of it. And they seem to recommend a
> libdir subdirectory...

i know it, but i wasnt about to start quoting FHS on you :P

i was hoping we could scrounge up better reasons before resorting to
throwing spec files at each other

> In the end it doesn't really matter, but if we
> change from libexec to lib/misc..

which is why i havent really started a thread on the topic already

> will need to modify a lot of gnome package at least.

yeah, a bunch of packages will need to be tweaked slightly, but i dont
think it should be a big deal to do ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/libexec vs /usr/lib(32|64)/misc

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:23:54 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
| little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official
| status of /usr/libexec directory?

libexec for stuff that's run is far tidier than weird subdirectories
in /usr/lib*. Those old people with beards got it right.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]