Thomas Sippel - Dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> o are not formally static libraries (/lib) or shared objects (/lib)
>The conceptual difference between a directory and a library
>escapes me, essentially, libraries are more efficient to read
>than directories, and mor
Thomas Sippel - Dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> o are not formally static libraries (/lib) or shared objects (/lib)
>The conceptual difference between a directory and a library
>escapes me, essentially, libraries are more efficient to read
>than directories, and mor
Thomas Sippel - Dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, without flaming, what exactly is /libexec useful for ?
`libexecdir'
The directory for installing executable programs to be run by
other programs rather than by users. This directory should
normally be `/usr/local/libexec', but
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:25:28PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Thomas Sippel - Dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> >
> > The BIG problem with additional directories in / is that they need
> > planning for at every installation or upgrade, and will invariably
> > tr
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:24:50PM +0100, Thomas Sippel - Dau wrote:
> So, without flaming, what exactly is /libexec useful for ? I guess it
> is for objects that:
>
> o need to be available at boot time (otherwise /usr/lib)
The GNU/Hurd does not differentiate between /foo and /usr/foo, /u
Thomas Sippel - Dau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> So, without flaming, what exactly is /libexec useful for ? I guess
> it is for objects that:
That should be /usr/libexec on *nix systems, GNU/Hurd has a symlink
from /usr to /. My mistake for not mentioning this.
[
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alfred M Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is sad news. As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> > > several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> > > Also if a new system
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 12:00:16PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Richard Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I've got a slightly newer draft, nearly properly groff formatted,
> > > but I've no place to post it online r
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:18:45PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Richard Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've got a slightly newer draft, nearly properly groff formatted,
> > but I've no place to post it online right now. Should I submit it
> > here?
>
> Sure, that way we can comment
Richard Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got a slightly newer draft, nearly properly groff formatted,
> but I've no place to post it online right now. Should I submit it
> here?
Sure, that way we can comment on it via mail.
Cheers,
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 01:19:50PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Richard Kreuter already started work a GNU/Hurd specific annex for
> the FHS:
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/help-hurd/2002-May/005960.html
I've got a slightly newer draft, nearly properly groff formatted,
but I've no place t
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 04:33:37AM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Alfred M Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is sad news. As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> > several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> > Also if a new system wants to introduce a
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alfred M Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is sad news. As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> > several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> > Also if a new system wants to introduce a new top level direct
Alfred M Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is sad news. As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> Also if a new system wants to introduce a new top level directory then
> you will need to add an specific annex for
Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alfred M Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You didn't bother answering the first question. Can a distribution
> > introduce a root level directory for its own use and still be
> > compatible with the FHS?
>
> I answered both. "Software" is a v
15 matches
Mail list logo
