Some package review feedback (bindir vs libexecdir, docs and find-debuginfo.sh naming)

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

Even though we aren't yet at debugedit 1.0 I did request a package
review for debugedit in Fedora to see what other issues would pop up.

You can find the review here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633

There are two issues I think should really be resolved upstream and not
be specific to how Fedora happens to do things.

First there is the question whether to name find-debuginfo.sh without
the .sh extension. So the script would be named "find-debuginfo". This
is also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640

I don't mind renaming the script to find-debuginfo, but then it
wouldn't be a drop-in replacement anymore for rpm. Is that an issue?

The second issue was whether to install the executables under
/usr/libexec/debugedit (or under /usr/lib/debugedit) instead of in the
normal bindir. The rational given for that was that there is no
documentation and because "normal users" would not use the executables
directly (they might only be called by other programs (which is what
libexec is for).

To fix the documentation issue I submitted patches to make sure
everything has at least a man page. I think these programs might be
used as is by normal users. Although find-debuginfo.sh needs to stop
depending on RPM_environment variables. So IMHO bindir is the more
natural place to install them.

For a 1.0 release we should make sure the documentation patches are
there. And fix the RPM_environment variables issue: 
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27637

Please let me know what you think of the above issues and whether there
are any other issues that you think should be resolved before we do a
1.0 release.

Thanks,

Mark