[pcp] pcp updates (mort-dev)

[Mark Goodwin]

Max Matveev wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:57:29 +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> 
>  goodwinos> The original change was to conform with the Fedora rules
>  goodwinos> (and avoid rpmlint complaints). This has something to do with
>  goodwinos> archs that support multilib. BTW, I don't have access to any ia64
>  goodwinos> h/w any more ..
> 
> Does Fedora have a concept of libexec? Because this is what those
> binaries are, they're not libraries, why are we pushing them in
> /usr/lib?

Both /usr/lib*/PACKAGE and /usr/libexec/PACKAGE are in wide-spread use
(poke around on a Fedora system and you'll see) and there are RPM macros
for both, e.g. %{libexecdir}.

My Fedora reviewer suggested to use /usr/lib in preference, so I went
with that. FWIW, the FSH does not include any provision for libexec.

The Fedora packaging guidelines in this respect are documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Libexecdir

FSH is here: http://www.pathname.com/fhs

It'd be easy enough to move PCP_BINADM_DIR to %{libexecdir}/pcp
if we want to - that may provide more consistency for the ia64
platform too. I don't particularly mind either way.

Cheers
- Mark