[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:33PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Yaroslav Halchenko 

> | please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying
> | touch):

> | is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having

> | /lib64 -> /lib

> Yes, it's required by the ABI, unfortunately.

> | /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib

> Not really, apart from some broken software  that will look for stuff
> there and be confused if it doesn't exist.  I think we should drop it.

How do we square that with the FHS, then?  The FHS says:

  If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent
  directories must also exist in /usr/local.

That seems to require /usr/local/lib64 even if we *don't* include
/usr/lib64, right?  Should we amend policy to take this exception to the
FHS?  Please open a bug report on policy if you think we should.

/me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;)
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: