Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

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&lt;qual&gt;</file>
> +                  to exist if <file>/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> or 
> +                  <file>/usr/lib&lt;qual&gt</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