pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: pcp updates
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:30:08 +1100
Cc: markgw@xxxxxxx, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, anibal@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <49977.192.168.3.1.1204711129.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <47851.192.168.3.1.1204709786.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47CE6C3C.1010901@xxxxxxx> <49977.192.168.3.1.1204711129.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "nscott" == nscott  <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 >> nscott@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
 >>> commit 9ff132c68a6f6dd76b91c9d477d302e278aedaad
 >>> Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
 >>> Date:   Wed Mar 5 20:28:15 2008 +1100
 >>> 
 >>> Turns out we cannot install ELF binaries below /usr/share, at
 >>> least for Debian (generates lotsa warnings) - these are meant
 >>> to be architecture-independent files only.  So, ended up with
 >>> PCP_BINADM_DIR pointing at /usr/sbin now (no other packages
 >>> have their own executable dirs - even X11 is using /usr/bin).
 >> 
 >> Without having investigated, this one rings warning bells (just
 >> remembering the pain we went thru after SuSE moved this a while
 >> back).
 >> 
 >> In any case, /usr/sbin isn't the right place for binaries that
 >> normal users or root should not be running directly. /usr/lib/pcp
 >> would be a better location, IMO since it wont be in anyone's
 >> path.

 nscott> Yeah, I'd rather have had a pcp-only directory, but it is
 nscott> evidentally not allowed on Debian (even X11, which usually
 nscott> has /usr/X11[R6]/bin as its own, is just a symlink back to
 nscott> /usr/bin, where all the X binaries are).
Does Debian has concept of libexec? Because this is what BINADM really
is.

And X is not a good example - X binaries are for users to run.

max

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>