[Fedora-packaging] libexecdir, rpmlint, and Packaging Guidelines
rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Jun 21 02:51:53 UTC 2006
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 12:19 -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
> 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)
Another example is GCC
> 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.
This won't work for GCC
GCC is using using:
1) contains target libraries/files
2) contains internal host-executables
Setting libexecdir=$libdir would screw up things badly, because it would
mix up host-executables and target-files.
Now one could argue that 1) actually should be /usr/share/gcc/$target
and 2) should be /usr/lib/gcc/$target ...
I am inclined to agree, but changing this would be a major effort.
> If we decide libexec
> is not allowed we should consider doing the same with our %configure
I am opposed to both.
> There have been several email threads related to libexecdir vs the FHS
> on the fedora lists. The last one I recall is here:
> 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.
The /usr/lib in 1) above needs to be $(prefix)/lib (=/usr/lib) not %
> 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.
More information about the Fedora-packaging