/usr/libexec

H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor.com
Tue May 10 14:48:05 UTC 2005


Russell Coker wrote:
> 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.
> 

Who the **** is talking about Postfix?

That being said, my point was that there doesn't seem to be any 32/64 
separation for libexec, *and* it never made sense in the first place (it 
was only added for bug-compatibility with BSD), so that's presumably why 
it was removed.

	-hpa




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list