Re: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
severity 613143 wishlist
usertags 613143 + normative discussion
quit
Hi Matthias, Aurelien, Santiago,
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Suggested change:
>
> --- /proc/self/fd/13 2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100
> @@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@
> to get access to kernel information.</footnote>
> </p>
> </item>
> + <item>
> + <p>
> + The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib<qual></file>
> + to exist if <file>/lib<qual></file> or
> + <file>/usr/lib<qual></file> exists is removed.
> + </p>
> + </item>
See http://bugs.debian.org/612000 for context. In short,
because (upstream, non-Debian) GCC searches all .../lib64 directories
before .../lib directories, the search order is out of wack if a
/usr/local/lib64 symlink does not exist:
- /usr/local/lib64 (which does not exist)
- /usr/lib (because /usr/lib64 is a symlink to it)
- /lib (because /lib64 is a symlink to it)
- /usr/local/lib
- /usr/lib again
...
That is, /usr/lib gets higher precedence than /usr/local/lib.
The technical question before us is whether the libc6 package (or
base-files or something) should provide a /usr/local/lib64 -> lib
symlink to get out of this mess.
Any thoughts?
Jonathan
Reply to: