1 |
On Tuesday 20 October 2009 16:47:50 Jonathan Callen wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> >> The problem was that Gentoo's early amd64 implementation predated this |
4 |
> >> standardization, and we had chosen the other way. While we've defaulted |
5 |
> >> to lib64 for 64-bit libs for years, it has never been considered |
6 |
> >> anything but experimental to break the lib --> lib64 link. AFAIK stable |
7 |
> >> baselayout still doesn't get its libdir usage consistent, putting files |
8 |
> >> in one but actually calling them using the other path, and boot breaks |
9 |
> >> in various frustrating ways if lib and lib64 are not the same directory. |
10 |
> >> Openrc gets it better now, but I'm not sure it's all fixed either -- it |
11 |
> >> certainly wasn't last time I tried breaking the link. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > your "AFAIK" isnt useful. there are no open bugs about either version |
14 |
> > and people assume that it's doing the right thing. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Personally, I do have a ~amd64 Gentoo chroot with LIBDIR_x86="lib". |
17 |
> There is only one place that I've found that it is still broken, namely |
18 |
> one line in toolchain.eclass (patch attached). I've been meaning to file |
19 |
> a bug for quite a while now, but never got around to it. |
20 |
|
21 |
off the top of my head, that doesnt really look like a correct fix. please |
22 |
open a bug with info on what you're actually doing. |
23 |
|
24 |
plus, your LIBDIR_x86 isnt really respected. there are places where |
25 |
lib32/lib64 are hardcoded when modifying gcc/binutils (patch or sed). |
26 |
-mike |