| 1 |
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 11:14 -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> Beside the fact that these would probably have looked better in |
| 3 |
> /usr/libexec |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
See Kay Sievers's comment at |
| 6 |
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51617 : |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
"/usr/lib/<pkgname>/ is a directory like /usr/libexec/ or even /bin. It |
| 9 |
shares absolutely zero things with the arch-specific $libdir ,or lib64/. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
/usr/lib/<pkgname>/ is the canonical "application private directory". It |
| 12 |
has the multi-lib or arch-specific rules as /bin. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It just happens to be the same directory as $libdir for 32bit |
| 15 |
installations in the classic non-multi-arch layout, which might go away |
| 16 |
over time, but that is absolutely no reason to symlink it away. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Having /lib pointing to /lib64 is plain wrong, and should not explicitly |
| 19 |
be supported by upstream build systems. If it happens to be that |
| 20 |
libexecdir works for that, then it's fine, but it is surely not treated |
| 21 |
as a bug if it isn't." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-Alexandre |
Archives