Am 27.11.07, 11:53 +0100 schrieb Patryk Zawadzki: > 2007/11/27, Kai-Uwe Behrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In danger of defining a new file hirarchy, I would first like ask how > > would it be appropriate to place binary plug-ins for a system wide > > service. > > Both system side and user side plug-ins should be supported. > > My first take was to extend the OpenICC Directory Proposal to include as > > well binaries, but found the XDG paths document[1] does not mention > > binaries. > > What do you need user-side binaries for? Running them from a system > service would result in giving the binaries root privileges.
I am working on a colour management system. It will feature a plug-in system. The plug-ins are commonly refered as CMM's. These libraries must be loaded by a say plug-in host. My take is there should be several hosts possible. While colours should be secure, root privilegs seems not appropriate ;-) > > Any hint would be welcome. > > All binaries should go to either $prefix/bin or $prefix/lib{,64} - > these are the only directories guaranteed to be mounted with exec > rights and not shared across different architectures (as is sometimes > done for /$prefix/share). Is'nt this difficult with a plug-in system. Currently I have a config-file/binary implementation. With this the CMM can be installed as library in a LD_LIBRARY_PATH. But I want to switch to something self contained. Scanning tousands of libraries to ask whether they are a CMM seems not usual practise or am I wrong with this assumtion? > -- > Patryk Zawadzki > PLD Linux Distribution kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann -- developing for colour management www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg