On 01/25/2013 10:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>> 3) The --libexecdir= switch points to a non-standard location. libexecdir
>> location has always been /usr/lib/packagename,
Yes, historically it was, however, it should now be where the package
maintainer chooses for it to be unless it violates the FHS.
>> yet in the Obexd instructions,
>> the location varies from this. Is this because other packages expect it to
>> be where the libexecdir switch points to it, or simply because the Editor
>> who originally put the package in BLFS decided to go against the standards
>> that we have created?
>>
> I completely forgot about the --libexecdir blfs standard.
This was just discussed in April of 2012 where it was decided that
{,B}LFS scrap that rule in favor of the standard /usr/libexec, as per
the draft of FHS 3.0. Unfortunately, the document was never finalized
due to the attack on kernel.org. Looks like Andy, Bruce, Ken, and myself
agreed on the new standard. Armin did not at the time, but I think that
his disagreement was with the separation of libexec items, not with the
spec. Randy wasn't back into editing mode yet for that one. Here is a
link to that discussion:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel/21616
It might be interesting to get each person's take on this in light of
the continued delay of FHS-3.0. Even though I'm not editing, FWIW,
seeing as I've already adopted it (along with the /usr merge and systemd
(still yuck, but standardized and works well enough to be tolerable)),
my thoughts on the topic remain unchanged.
-- DJ
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
