[packages/FHS] introduce /usr/{,local/}libexec directories

Jakub Bogusz qboosh at pld-linux.org
Mon Jul 10 17:35:26 CEST 2017

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 20:02:48 +0900, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > If you want me to keep this commit and directory then follow up by:
> > 
> > a) updating rpm macros
> Yes, I was considering this point. Just wondering, what would break (in
> theory: nothing should) and how to perform the validation. Didn't want
> to do such change without more feedback, so now - if you already
> summoned this subject, I'll wait a few days for any comments.
> I've already reviewed these and only one (re)definition needs to be
> adjusted (in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/pld), remaining macros seem to be
> cascading properly.

Note that there are some inter-package consistency requirements.

And just like some packages having hardcoded /usr/libexec, and "require
hackery" to use libdir subdirectory, the others have hardcoded /usr/lib**
for this purpose and would "require hackery" to use libexec.

Without using libexec consequently, I don't see any profits (single
place for internal binaries).

> > b) cleaning up packages that have libexec redefined directly in specs
> > FHS states this directory is optional, and I do not care at all what GNU
> > shamans think. This is not GNU/PLD, just PLD.
> I don't care about all this GNU/crap either, but using some Fedora
> systems this directory was really convenient. My personal rationale is
> 'follow the world', just to avoid being different than all the rest.

On the other side, the "second half of the world" (Debian/Ubuntu) doesn't
use libexec.
>From minorities, e.g. Gentoo uses, Arch doesn't.

Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list