On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:57:46 +0300 Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 21:15 -0400, Ed Hill wrote:
>
> *Please* stop suggesting alternatives.
>
> Alternatives is a total failure for user-space applications that are
> not *completely* generic and 100% interchangeable. Lets illustrate
> this point with three use cases:
>
> Please notice that modules (aka "environment modules") is a
> perfectly workable solution for all the above scenarios and it does
> not require any help from an admin (or root/sudo perms).
Exactly. Now the question still remains where to hide these. OpenMPI
puts its wrappers in /usr/share/openmpi, but /usr/share is for
architecture independent data.
Since /usr/bin doesn't have any subdirectories to me it seems quite
straightforward to use /usr/libexec/%{name} to "hide" the binaries.
They are then automatically added to the path upon loading the module.
My interpretation is that this is OK according to the Packaging
guidelines: "Libexecdir (aka, /usr/libexec on Fedora systems) should
be used as the directory for executable programs that are designed
primarily to be run by other programs rather than by users."
Yes!!!
And +1 for a convention such as
/usr/libexec/%{name}
/usr/libexec/%{name}-%{version}
that allows both names and, if desired, versions.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed(a)eh3.com |
http://eh3.com/