| 1 |
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:38:13 +0200 |
| 2 |
Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing |
| 9 |
> > > udev rules to not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links |
| 12 |
> > > to /$(get_libdir) and multilib-strict requires it, but it seems |
| 13 |
> > > to be intelligent enough to only deny 64-bit libs to go to /lib. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > So proper udev should use /lib/udev, correct? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Do you really think it'd be fine for some systems to possibly |
| 18 |
> > have /lib64 and /lib with random different contents? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Well I was always under the impression that /lib64 and /lib did point |
| 21 |
> to the same directory. |
| 22 |
> Is the case where /lib is no symlink to /lib64 so frequent? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sorry for replying that late. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The 'main' multilib profile was switched to have 64-bit libs in lib64 |
| 27 |
and 32-bit ones in lib lately. I'm not sure if it used by any real |
| 28 |
profile though. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And I think that non-multlib amd64 has lib64 only. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Michał Górny |
Archives