Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:09:24AM -1000, Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >>> Correct. We agree those go in /usr/lib. >>> >>> >> Well maybe. Certainly not /usr/bin, but perhaps we are starting to >> add too much to the clutter. Sorta like sweeping the crumbs from one >> room to another. >> >> BTW: The number of entries in /usr/lib used to be much more of a >> performance issue than /usr/bin ever was (ld.so.1 does a lot more >> stats than sh). I don't know the current state (maybe fast caches >> lower this into the noise.) >> > > Oh sure, I would be happy with /usr/lib/exec or /usr/libexec, or > /usr/lib/<pkg>/... > > But I thought that all executables not to be run by users or sysadmins > (e.g., daemons started by SMF) go into /usr/lib (having recently > delivered such a thing...). > > Nico > Yes, using /usr/lib is existing practice. Should we improve on it (in this context)? I'm not sure its worth the effort, but I think we should consider such an improvement as we refine the /usr/bin semantics.
- jek3
