Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are > under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix > vs /usr/libexec/postfix. > > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
I disagree. Why is it important to distinguish between shared libraries and internal binaries (i.e. programs not supposed to be called directly by a user)? In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files? > Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec? I don't think so. Both FHS 2.1 (referenced by the current Policy) and FHS 2.3 (the latest FHS version) mandate /usr/lib (or a subdirectory) for internal binaries. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
