[blfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3162: Glibc 2.16.0 Suggestions

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Aug 21 23:41:34 PDT 2012

On 08/20/2012 04:11 PM, Randy McMurchy wrote:

Welcome back!

> LFS Trac wrote these words on 08/20/12 15:37 CST:
>> Comment(by Krejzi):
>>   I just want to say that I personaly won't make use of /usr/libexec
>>   anywhere where I make the changes untill it is official.
>>   I was even thinking about reverting that for Postfix and vte-0.28 untill
>>   it's official.
> Are those the only two packages in BLFS currently using /usr/libexec?
> I realize that the issue right now is with LFS's Glibc, so just for the
> record I prefer individually named directories. But I can go either way,
> it is rather small. I know I will continue in my personal builds to
> create individual directories for each package the needs a libexec, but
> that's just me. Whatever we decide for the books is fine with me.
> I cc'd BLFS-Dev for anyone wishing to discuss this issue as it pertains
> to BLFS.

It used to cause minor headaches with Gnome-2.26-32 IIRC, and a fair bit 
of patching was required for a few packages, but upstream was accepting 
of patches (except for GDM which eventually got a proper fix as 
suggested by Dan (ck-* files)), but I'm not sure now days. I build 
everything in /usr and let /usr/libexec be, seeing as it's now a 
standard path in the v3 draft. But, "official" FHS-3.0 may take some 
time. The repo was lost a while ago (when kernel.org got hit I think). I 
don't know if they ever got it back. /usr/libexec will eventually be 
standard, so it's probably good to continue in that direction.

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list