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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
