On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 18:24, Ed Hill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:38:15 +0200 "Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski"
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 15:28, Ed Hill wrote:
> >
> > And +1 for a convention such as
> >
> > /usr/libexec/%{name}
> > /usr/libexec/%{name}-%{version}
> >
> > that allows both names and, if desired, versions.
>
> It still feels like a bit of an abuse of libexec.
> I prefer using %{_libdir}/%{name}(-%{version})/bin for this purpose.
> Some packages do that (that is, keep their binaries there).
What reason(s) do you have for the preference ?
If you use %{_libdir} then you will have to deal with multi-lib which,
in my opinion, needlessly complicates paths in the environment-modules
files.
If you use %{_libexecdir} then you do *not* have to worry about any
multilib issues -- they are automatically sorted out for you.
That is a good argument and I have considered it before. However,
libexec is non-standard and its purpose is to keep application-internal
binaries, not ones intended for user consumption. I think these points
outweigh the little convenience which using libexec provides.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion
http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer
http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"