On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:17:39PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > it is simply wrong to place internal binaries in %{_libdir}. internal
> > binaries should not be subject to multlib'ed dirs, the same way as
> > binaries in bin/ are not...
>
> I would note I have seen cases where helper binaries actually needed to be
> arch-specific and in $prefix/$libdir. I think it was bonobo?
>
> In any case, I agree - my proposal was that packages that use
> non-multilibbed helper binaries should be free to put them in *one of*
> $prefix/lib or $prefix/libexec, as long as they remain consistent.
>
I'll see if I can write this into the packaging Guidelines -- the FPC
members were just worried that packagers would attempt to use a multilib
exemption without a manual review as a way to circumvent non-trivial
packaging issues: "The upstream library build scripts just use hardcoded
/usr/lib. I haven't heard of anyone using multilib (what is multilib
anyway?) so I guess I can just install it to /usr/lib." But something like
"helper binaries that would ordinarily be installed into %{_libexecdir} are
always multilib exempt. Just be sure the (sub)package they're in does not have
other, multiilib content. If in doubt, ask." might be clear enough to
pass. I'll open the FPC ticket now.And on another note, adamw and myself decided that in the spirit of Christmas, we're going to attempt to let this thread die. You can look forward to zero new posts from the two of us on this thread. Happy Holidays everyone, here's wishing everyone a flame free inbox for Christmas :-) -Toshio
pgpyCScGNmuDS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
