[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

From: Mark Ellis
Subject: Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:30:26 +0000

On 2002.03.23 20:23 Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 03:58:21PM +0000, Mark Ellis wrote:
> Hi all, i'm curious, is there a specific reason GNU uses this
> when the FHS seems to be trying to get rid of it ?

Well, it seems like an appropriate place.

I can't fault your reasoning there :)

> The subject pops up in linuxfromscratch now and again about where to

> put binaries that want to go in here, i'd be interested to hear why
> guys decided to keep it.

The only alternative is /lib/package/..., but that is kind of an abuse
/lib, because programs are not libraries.

Some use /sbin, which is also an abuse because those programs are not
generally usable by users directly by definition.

Some use even /usr/sbin/init.d/ or other weird places.

You really want to use /libexec for these programs.  I have the
feeling that
some people thought they could get rid of another directory with just
couple of files (just for the sake of getting rid of it), and then had
find new places and invent reasons to put them there (such reasoning
be like this: "/usr/sbin/init.d/ is right because it is a binary that
is not
boot-essential and not used by any user."  Of course, this assumes
that you
don't want to put it in /libexec a priori, or maybe because a mislead
of aesthetics.  My suspicion is that some people have no brain, just
fuzzy things in their head :) just kidding)

It does seem like a strange omission to the directory structure without a specific idea of what to use instead. My preference has always been /lib since there are some executables in here but your right, it isn't an entirely appropriate choice.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]