Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (102 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Proposal: Update rpm configuration to fix issues and rationalize configuration
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?

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.

From there it follows fairly easily that /usr/lib should be empty on a
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups