| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-13-07 at 16:52 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 22:01 +0200, Sven Köhler wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > what's the current way of dealing with the folders /lib and /usr/lib |
| 6 |
> > which are symlinks to /lib64 or /usr/lib64 on amd64 systems? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185126#c3 |
| 9 |
> > one of the gentoo devs (Jakub) thought, that paths like /usr/lib |
| 10 |
> > shouldn't be hardcoded. Hmm - to me, this statement only makes sense, if |
| 11 |
> > ebuilds installing files to /lib or /usr/lib are actually disliked. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > But actually, very fundamental stuff like udev, grub-static, etc. |
| 14 |
> > still install there files to /lib or /usr/lib instead of /lib64 or |
| 15 |
> > /usr/lib64. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > So should these packages be fixed? |
| 18 |
> > Or is it intentional or at least legal, that they install files to /lib |
| 19 |
> > or /usr/lib on amd64? |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> binary libraries should not be installed to /usr/lib or /lib (and will |
| 23 |
> fail multilib-strict checks, if they are). Anything else, such as |
| 24 |
> python files or text files, can be installed in /usr/lib and /lib. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Even then, anything that is different between architectures should be |
| 27 |
in /usr/lib<XX>. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Olivier Crête |
| 31 |
tester@g.o |
| 32 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives