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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Jun 20 23:06:07 UTC 2006

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:19:06PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I would like to have clarification of whether using libexec is in
> accordance with the Fedora Guidelines or if packages using it should be
> changed.

FWIW libexec is briefly mentioned within RHEL documentation about
FHS. It could be considered an API description of RHEL and since we'd
like RHEL to remain closely related to Fedora Core, it would make any
change of current libexec practices even harder.

IMHO the best thing would be to get someone on the FHS list and
promote the resurrection of libexec.

> The usage of libexecdir for binary programs (not libraries) which are
> not intended to be invoked by users, just other programs (gnome panel
> applets are an example) is currently part of Fedora Core, the *BSDs, and
> the GNU Coding Standards.  The FHS had libexecdir in a draft at one
> point but apparently dropped it after a poll (The FHS mailing list
> archives are currently inaccessible so I can't verify this)  Debian has
> been vehement in its following the letter of the FHS so they set
> libexecdir to /usr/lib/pkgname through configure.  If we decide libexec
> is not allowed we should consider doing the same with our %configure
> macro.
> There have been several email threads related to libexecdir vs the FHS
> on the fedora lists.  The last one I recall is here:
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/25433/
> The thread brings up an issue which similar discussions on Debian
> mailing lists fail to mention (because Debian is not multilib): On
> multilib, you want one version of a helper program that matches the
> wordsize of the main program, not one for 32 bits in /usr/lib and
> another for 64 bits in /usr/lib64.  Thus /usr/libexec to match /usr/bin.
> There have been several people who have said they intended to bring the
> libexec lack to the attention of the FHS but with their mailing list
> inaccessible I'm unable to check whether any discussion reached the FHS.
> -Toshio

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060621/3e894491/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list