Andrew McNabb wrote: > The fact of the matter is that libexec has been around on many different > types of systems for many years. I find it hard to believe that there's > some vast conspiracy to undermine the FHS by creating renegade libexec > directories in /usr. It seems much more likely that a lot of people > think libexec is a good idea, and FHS is just a little behind.
I guess my question is, what do other OS's and distros actually put in libexec? On my machine, things like xscreensavers seem to be there. Executables in their own right, but not intended to be run directly. That kind of thing perhaps. > In the end, it's really not a big deal. I've seen weak arguments for > libexec and weak arguments against it. I guess if people need to fight > about something, it's best that they pick an inconsequential issue like > this. :) Right. And as far as RHEL or Fedora goes, they can be FHS compliant while still using libexec for their own system packages. FHS-compliant packages, however, would not use libexec. -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
