On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
>>its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
>>"standard" instead of making their works compliant with _our_
>>distro's demands.
>
>libexec doesn't exist in any published version of the FHS,
FHS != GCS
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Directory-Variables
IIRC, it's around there for at approx 20 years.
So?
>and even the
>draft of 3.0 makes it clear that it's optional.
We all know about the strong positions of the FHS. It is the least
common denominator of all distros and deliberately weakly formulated
;)
>Our use of libexec is
>non-standard,
C.f above. I disagree.
The GCS describe the behaviour of code written to the GCS, nothing
more. The majority of the software we ship doesn't conform to them.
>not systemd's use of lib.
I disagree again. systemd is in its infancy and needs to do its
homework. As I see it, like many other works, they simply did not
take the GCS and the side-effects of multi-arching into account.
They're not a GNU project, and so there's no reason for them to follow
the GCS. There's also no reason for it to support multiarch - you're
never going to have two copies of systemd installed simultaneously.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org