Heya,
recommending %{_libdir}/%{name} will result in /usr/lib64/foo/ which is very broken.
"Application private directories' are for binaries not for libraries and are not architecture dependent; they must live in /usr/lib, regardless of the architecture. It is also defined that way by LSB.
In general, we recommend, and all new tools use already, the LSB defined /usr/lib/<pkgname>/ dir, because libexec/ is entirely forbidden to use on all other Linux distributions, and we want to share more with them.
There would be no rush to get rid of libexec in Fedora, it's nothing wrong with it in general; but recommending it in the packaging guidelines seems very wrong to me, and against all common sense in upstream Linux development.
It's a pretty useless Fedora'ism that serves no real purpose and is just different from everything else. It solves no problem that isn't already solved since many years.
Thanks, Kay
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:23PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
Heya,
recommending %{_libdir}/%{name} will result in /usr/lib64/foo/ which is very broken.
"Application private directories' are for binaries not for libraries and are not architecture dependent; they must live in /usr/lib, regardless of the architecture. It is also defined that way by LSB.
In general, we recommend, and all new tools use already, the LSB defined /usr/lib/<pkgname>/ dir, because libexec/ is entirely forbidden to use on all other Linux distributions, and we want to share more with them.
There would be no rush to get rid of libexec in Fedora, it's nothing wrong with it in general; but recommending it in the packaging guidelines seems very wrong to me, and against all common sense in upstream Linux development.
It's a pretty useless Fedora'ism that serves no real purpose and is just different from everything else. It solves no problem that isn't already solved since many years.
Feel free to file this as a request on https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/newticket
Since this is removal of a guideline, no need for a draft, you can just use these arguments for why you'd like to see it removed.
However, FPC has voted on the libexec at least twice (once for allowing it and once for clarifying the intent regard architecture independent programs). IIRC, the last time included all the same people who are on the FPC now. I don't see any new arguments in your email so my estimate is that a proposal to remove it is unlikely to pass.
-Toshio
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org