On 12/20/2011 7:23 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 20 Dec 2011, at 3:10 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >>>> None of these require the user to be administrator, except to use the >>>> apxs -i option. Not really sure if these make sense. Any pointers to >>>> a decent canonical definition of sbin v bin? >>> >>> You're right, the current split doesn't seem to make much sense. >>> >>> I think apxs belongs in bin, given that "apxs -i" is the same as "make >>> install" and make goes in bin. >> >> /usr/sbin/apxs seems to be the usual place in my non-scientific survey. > > I see this is true for Fedora and Redhat, though it doesn't seem to make > sense - non root users want to compile Apache httpd modules too, and > shouldn't need to fiddle with paths to get it. > >>> In the case of ab, logresolve, httxt2dbm and rotatelogs, these are >>> definitely bin. >> >> rotatelogs isn't expected to be used by end users. Why not sbin? >> >> In general, looking at and possibly following the distros for bin vs >> sbin could be helpful. > > I had analysed the Fedora packaging split for bin/sbin already, but had > missed rotatelogs, which they place in sbin. That does make some sense, will > change it again.
+1 I agree that apxs seems odd in either sbin, or bin. It practically screams for a dev-bin/ much like we deposit specific libfoo.pc/libfoo-config.sh files. Since -config's are going into bin/, apxs should be going into bin/.
