Thanks for the explanation

Posted Mar 31, 2011 11:38 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463)
In reply to: Thanks for the explanation by david.a.wheeler
Parent article: Introducing /run

Well, there seems to be a case for /run. But what exactly is the case for libexec?

As far as I can see libexec serves mostly to annoy sysadmins so they have to search for "updatedb" there... ;) Or am I wrong?

to post comments

Thanks for the explanation

Posted Mar 31, 2011 12:26 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

Refer to

http://bugs.freestandards.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101

Thanks for the explanation

Posted Apr 21, 2011 13:23 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (1 responses)

"As such in a simplified view libexecdir contents are more like bindir contents only that they don't appear in the user's path."

That is not a case for libexec. That is a case for NOT having any libexec whatsoever.

Thanks for the explanation

Posted Apr 21, 2011 13:40 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

You asked for a rationale and one has been provided. If you disagree, provide a alternative solution instead of naysaying. This is where FHS as a maintained standard would be useful. Unfortunately this isn't the case now.