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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 12/21/2012 09:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:45:45AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> However, you also miss my point.  Adam's message was saying that the
> guidelines forced people to use libexecdir and then went on to point out the
> drawbacks of forcing specifically libexecdir on upstreams that didn't have that
> coded in.
Again, many packages have the basic means to implement it built-in (all 
those using autoconf).

However,
* packages having been developed on non-multilib'ed systems (most 
packages with a Debian/Ubuntu origin) often are not taking advantage of 
libexecdir, because its implementors are not aware about the problems 
installing into %{_libdir} causes.

* in many cases, adding libexecdir support is trivial (no idea about 
systemd)

>  So, as I said, in that context it's meaningless to bring up
> arguments that are only addressed to libexecdir because %{_libdir} is an
> alternative.

I do not agree with your conclusion.

Enforcing %{_libexecdir} is one possible approach to gradually resolve 
the issues we are discussing here, in many situations.

Ralf