On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:27:44 PM CEST Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane
<musuruan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> The Filesystem Layout section of the guidelines was simplified and
>> outdated information was removed.
>>
>> *
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>> *
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
>> *
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/623
>
>
> The links to FHS specs are all outdated. The current one is
>
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/fhs
>
> Moreover I still read "The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard does not include
> any provision for libexecdir, " which is not accurate:
>
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s07.html
I still read the same issues. The page is protected and it cannot be
freely edited.
FWIW, I don't think the FHS has been fixed correctly WRT libexecdir, even
though it points to GNU Coding Standards (which is equivalent to how Fedora
interprets libexec):
FHS [1] says:
/usr/libexec includes internal binaries that are not intended to be
executed directly by users or shell scripts. ...
.. why there is the part ".. or shell scripts?". How a shell script differs
from other (binary) programs?
GNU standards [2] say "The directory for installing executable
programs to be run by other programs rather than by users.".
[1]
http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s07.html
[2]
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Directory-Variables.html
Pavel