On 12/21/2012 09:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:45:45AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:24:09PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
However, you also miss my point. Adam's message was saying that the
guidelines forced people to use libexecdir and then went on to point out the
drawbacks of forcing specifically libexecdir on upstreams that didn't have that
coded in.
Again, many packages have the basic means to implement it built-in (all
those using autoconf).
However,
* packages having been developed on non-multilib'ed systems (most
packages with a Debian/Ubuntu origin) often are not taking advantage of
libexecdir, because its implementors are not aware about the problems
installing into %{_libdir} causes.
* in many cases, adding libexecdir support is trivial (no idea about
systemd)
So, as I said, in that context it's meaningless to bring up
arguments that are only addressed to libexecdir because %{_libdir} is an
alternative.
I do not agree with your conclusion.
Enforcing %{_libexecdir} is one possible approach to gradually resolve
the issues we are discussing here, in many situations.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
