'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 24/11/12 23:11 did gyre and gimble: > On Sat, 24.11.12 10:18, Dave (Bob) ([email protected]) wrote: > >> The only thing that I would be interested to know, is why what I would >> see as executables and cofiguration files are put in the 'lib' > > The binaries in /usr/lib/systemd are binaries that are more or less > internal to systemd, and never invoked directly by the user. Their > command interface is not considered stable, and should not pollute > $PATH. > > Also see this mail I sent in another thread today: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-November/007543.html > > In that mail I try to give an explanation of the scheme how we > distribute binaries between bindir, rootbindir and /usr/lib/systemd.
I guess that answers the "binaries" bit, but probably doesn't answer why system units are in /usr/lib/systemd/system/ rather than, say, /usr/share/systemd/systemd. I think that's the "configuration files" part of Dave's question. That said, I don't think either is a "perfect" location anyway... I mean we don't really have a /usr/$NNN dir that really is equiv of /etc, but not for admin use. I guess some packages have opted for putting their config into /usr/share (e.g. alsa) and some into /usr/lib (e.g. systemd) It would have been nice to get a "global" standard here, but such is life. Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
