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

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Steve Langasek 

> | 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
> policy.  

libc6 2.13-17 removed the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks, so the problem
described in bug#612000 no longer exists and there's no reason to want
a /usr/local/lib64 symlink any more.  We're left in the less worrisome
situation Steve described, with the question of whether to create a
(useless) /usr/local/lib64 directory.

So now I can wholeheartedly endorse your proposed 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>
>              </enumlist>
>  
>            </p>

Seconds?

Thanks,
Jonathan