Is panel plugins integration broken at the moment?

[Carol Spears]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 01:23:08PM +0200, Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> Carol Spears schreef:
> ...
> >>It seems the linker automatically looks for libaries in ${prefix}/lib 
> >>when running binaries in ${prefix}/bin. This is not the case for plugins 
> >>in ${prefix}/libexec/xfce4/panel-plugins.
> >>
> > 
> > that is interesting.  i do not remember seeing that directory before any
> > where.  i have one in /usr/local where xfce is but debian did not put
> > one in /usr.  did it come from samba?
> > 
> 
> This is getting a bit off-topic ;-) External plugins for the new panel 
> are installed in ${prefix}/libexec/xfce4/panel-plugins/. Some 
> distributions define the libexec directory to be ${prefix}/lib/.

this made sense to me if it was something from samba.

i don't want to change an important root owned file like that for one
application.  the only reason i would consider it is if i was installing
something like samba to read acrossed file systems like i guess it does.

it makes sense that right now that only samba needs it since i do not
use (and this time install) that.  i don't do windows.  and it makes
sense since i was able to build everything fine without adding a line to
my linker thing.

it is true that most of the software i have built is gtk+ or console
oriented.  the weirdest software, the one i had to "leave home" to
fullfill the dependencies for was mplayer and even that did not need me
to add a new line to ld.config.

on the outside chance that the windows world could produce a software
that i would need to install samba to use, i would like to know that i
was doing this because they had done something they have never done
before.  adding a line to my linker dohicky would be like admitting they
had built something that i needed/wanted and it should feel about that
bad.

if i am still misunderstanding this, and i might be -- that is the only
way it would be offtopic.

carol