[Fedora-packaging] should packages be changed to use libexec?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 06:51:48PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> The Squeak VM package has several possible interpretters -- for example, a
> an experimental JIT version, and a version which handles 64-bit images (a
> separate issue from the arch of the system they're running on). There's also
> a helper binary used solely to determine the bit-size format of an image.
> 
> Right now, these are all in %{libdir}/squeak/ with the plugins. A script
> installed as /usr/bin/squeak has the logic which calls them. And in the
> current test package, it's failing because the script doesn't understand
> about /usr/lib64
> 
> If this stuff were packaged in the upstream to use /usr/libexec/squeak/,
> then this would fit with the Fedora packaging guidelines and the /usr/bin
> script wouldn't have to be tricky.
> 
> It's not, though. In this case, is it better to package the binaries into
> /usr/libexec/squeak, or is it better to patch the bin script to know about
> lib64? And in that case, is it better to patch the script for the right path
> at rpm build time, or use runtime detection logic?
> 
both are valid.  For that reason, I'd use libexec since it would normally be
easier to implement.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20121107/3a570d07/attachment.sig>