/usr/libexec

Russell Coker russell at coker.com.au
Tue May 10 08:53:36 UTC 2005


On Tuesday 10 May 2005 15:02, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> wrote:
> Chris Ricker wrote:
> > FWIW, what little can be found about libexec in FHS discussion archives
> > at sourceforge suggests that libexec has been deliberately excluded in
> > the past on the grounds of not really serving a purpose....
>
> It was included in an old version of FHS at the urging of the BSD folks.
>   It seems to have added no value, so I guess it was removed; it
> definitely broke the lib/lib64 bit too.

Why do you believe that it broke the lib/lib64 bit?

AFAIK no-one has ever tested Postfix with parts of it running as 32bit and 
parts running as 64bit.  Running it in such a manner seems likely to expose 
the user to previously undiscovered bugs while not providing any benefit that 
I can determine.

If you wanted Postfix to load shared objects of different word sizes in 
different sub-processes then you would have a challenging task to determine 
which Postfix program loads which shared objects.

Please give me an example of a program which has sub-processes that can run 
with different word sizes.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list