[Fedora-packaging] libexecdir, rpmlint, and Packaging Guidelines

Toshio Kuratomi toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Tue Jun 20 20:03:57 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 14:42 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at tiki-lounge.com> writes:
> TK> I would like to have clarification of whether using libexec is in
> TK> accordance with the Fedora Guidelines or if packages using it
> TK> should be changed.
> I've asked previously on IRC and was told that it was OK.  Let me see
> if I still have the logs.  Oh, it was you who answered me.  So this
> isn't terribly useful, but since I dug it up....
Yes.  I've been working under the impression that libexec is fine
because the Core packagers have expressed good reasons for it to
exist... but rpmlint complains about it.  Ville's position (correct IMO)
is that rpmlint should follow FHS unless there's a specific exception in
the Guidelines so it seemed time to formalize whether it's allowed or

> [Tue May 16 2006] [15:25:38] <fedorared>
>      rpmlint does complain about libexec however.
> [Tue May 16 2006] [15:25:40] <ixs>
>      /usr/libexec should be fine for binaries and stuff not directly
>      called by the user. according to FHS at least.

Hmm.. Is Andreas on this list?  I don't see where the FHS allows for

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060620/d6de134d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list