Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#3498 closed task (fixed)
Glibc libexec dir
| Reported by: | Armin | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 7.5 |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
Glibc currently has --libexecdir=/usr/lib/glibc but /usr/lib could also be used.
Currently there's a directory installed in /usr/lib/glibc, so using /usr/lib is also fine.
There will be /usr/lib/getconf instead of /usr/lib/glibc/getconf with this change.
Attachments (1)
Change History (9)
by , 10 years ago
| Attachment: | glibc.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
I rather wouldn't, at least not for this release. Current book still uses the old FHS standard and I'm really strict when it comes to it, hence the -fhs-1.patch for Glibc (I'll post a seperate ticket for it so you might decide if it's worth supporting it or not) :)
When the book implements new FHS standard then you can drop all libexec switches if you like, but don't make an exception for Glibc for now since other packages in LFS in BLFS still override it.
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
I was intending to transitioning to the newer FHS standard. We do have /run for instance. akhiezer did a very nice job in analyzing the newer FHS. Of course it's still beta, but it hasn't changed for about three years.
Even though we are soon to be in a package freeze, we still can fix things like libexec. In fact I think it simplifies things. A quick look show the following in LFS: man-db, glibc, coreutils, findutils, gcc, gawk, inetutils, tar, and udev.
I can fix all those tomorrow. If needed, we can delay -rc1 for a couple of days.
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Fixed as part of revision 10469.
comment:5 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:6 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
There is a conflict with the patch and the newly incorporated FHS.
comment:7 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:8 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
I apologize for this. My local tree and svn diff showed that this wasn't implemented. Yet my changes were still there showing otherwise.
What if we just removed the --libexecdir completely? Wouldn't that put it in /usr/libexec? I know we've avoided that in the past, but I'm not sure if that is the best policy. Looking at the new FHS, it seems that /usr/libexec is for programs and libraries that should not be used directly by the user. That seems to fit getconf in this case.