/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