Hi, On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
What's wrong with /usr/lib/name/?
Everything. lib shall not contain executables. lib shall not contain subdirectories. lib shall contain only libraries. lib shall contain _nothing_ on lib64 platforms.
A pretty radical demand. I guess you have technical insight that makes you say that?
From there it follows fairly easily that /usr/lib should be empty on a
It's not so much technical, but as I said there are also no technical reasons why e.g. /usr/include would be separate, all its content could just as well be stuffed into /usr/lib. It's about what conceptually belongs where, header files to /usr/include, libraries to /usr/lib and executables called only internally by other tools into /usr/libexec, or /usr/libexec/$toolname (modules would belong into this category) and other files associated with a tool into /usr/share. pure lib64 system. Also /usr/lib should be able to be mounted noexec, and everything should continue to work. One advantage of putting executable helpers for a tool into libexec, not lib{,64} would be that the path doesn't depend on architecture bits (as it should be, because for executables the bitness doesn't matter, for libraries it does).
Even the dynamic linker may read libraries from subdirectories.
Only if configured in /etc/ld.so.conf or LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Also, what about multilib approaches?
What about them? They're orthogonal to libexec (except in so far as cleaning up cruft from lib makes multilib approaches easier). Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org