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

Jesse Keating jkeating at j2solutions.net
Tue Jun 20 20:09:57 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 13:03 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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
> not. 

I certainly feel that this is a worthy exception in the Guidelines.  The
use of libexec has good reason is is not going to change.  rpmlint
should take note of this (:

Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- 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/20060620/9b21345c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list