Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
]] Steve Langasek
| 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.
I think this is a bug in the FHS that we need to work around in Debian
| /me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;)
--- /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>
+ 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.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are