On 03/09/11 18:05, Jan Steffens wrote:
I've been wondering why we do not have /usr/libexec.
The GNOME packages apparently use --libexecdir=/usr/lib/$pkgname. We've been running into problems with GNOME 3.2 because increasingly more components depend on the libexecdir being the same across all packages (we already had this problem in GDM, where we currently patch).
The other option, used by a few other packages, seems to be using --libexecdir=/usr/lib, which seems the next best solution to me. That is, if /usr/libexec is not available.
Comments?
I think the general reason is that the libexec directory is not specified in the FHS. Have not looked at the latest draft though... Importantly, /usr/lib/ is not excluded from having binaries. "/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts." As far as --libexecdir=/usr/lib vs /usr/lib/$pkgname, I think that really depends how much is being shoved in /usr/lib. Could you use /usr/lib/gnome? Allan