Alice Wonder wrote: > Hi, > > Am I correctly understanding that the filesystem philosophy of LFS/BLFS > is to not use /usr/libexec ?? > > I don't need an explanation as to why, I just want to know if that's > what has been adopted or not.
We have generally avoided it, but I'm not sure we should. At one time we made an effort to make sure that that files were placed in /usr/lib, but we are not so pedantic about it now. We now mostly use what the developer sets up, but haven't recently gone through to ensure complete consistency. My understanding is that it should contain executables, not libraries, that are designed to be called by programs and not explicitly by a user. The calling program needs to know where the child executable is located because /usr/libexec is not in the PATH or searched by ld. One thing to note is that there are several of these programs created and used by udev that are in /lib/udev, not the /usr hierarchy at all. Looking at one recent system, I see apache, qemu, and xfce4 using /usr/libexec. Apache and xfce4 seem to want to put plugins into libexec but they could easily be put in /usr/lib/. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
