Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 19:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > A systemd-specific exception works for systemd, fine, but it doesn't
> > really seem to address the root problem.
> 
> To further elaborate: the 'root problem', it seems to me, is that this
> 'Fedoraism' as Lennart calls it results in one of two things:
> 
> 1) we have to carry downstream patches or spec file stuff to relocate
> things to /usr/libexec (and, possibly, tell other things that those
> things have been relocated) - which is against
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects
> 
> or:
> 
> 2) we have to pressure upstream projects to needlessly complicate their
> code and buildsystem with stuff like $libexecdir variables in their
> autofoo, which resolve to /usr/libexec on Fedora/RHEL but just /usr/lib
> or something on other distros - which is kind of an imposition on
> upstreams
> 
> All this for the rather questionable benefit of having a specifically
> defined place for helper-scripts-not-meant-to-be-executed-directly,
> which gains us...what, exactly, over just putting them
> in /usr/lib/(appname) or /usr/share/(appname) or whatever? I don't see
> that libexec is actually giving us some kind of huge win to justify the
> inconveniences.

Hm, I missed the point that the exception is for lib/foo vs. %libdir/foo
(arched vs. non-arched). That makes it a more complex three-way
argument. But I think the point about libexecdir being pointless still
stands.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net