On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support > > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ? > > I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib" lib/lib64 > duality (Red Hat derivatives, etc.) only have one /usr/libexec, just like > they only have one /usr/bin; so anything that expects a per-architecture > libexecdir is already broken on more or less everything other than Debian.
> I'd expect a future Debian with FHS 3.0 in Policy to have > libdir=/usr/lib/TUPLE and libexecdir=/usr/libexec as the normal settings > for Autoconf. There are already 28 /usr/lib/TUPLE/*/bin directories in unstable. There are probably other directories with binaries not named bin. They are candidates for being moved to /usr/libexec, but they should probably go to /usr/libexec/TUPLE at least to avoid file conflicts. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
