Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
]] Aurelien Jarno
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Aurelien Jarno
> >
> > > How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and
> > > #720780 which ask for /usr/lib<qual> to be created if /lib<qual> exists.
> > > It's something that can be implemented, but before doing so, I would
> > > like to know if a decision has been taken wrt the policy.
> >
> > I think the whole lib<qual> thing should be avoided and we should nack
> > it for any new ports. Ideally, we should also try to get ourselves out
> > of the hole we've dug ourselves into.
>
> Unfortunately given we still want to keep multilib compilers in the
> archive, we need to provide foreign binaries, and thus install them in
> lib<qual>. The policy clearly states that a foreign binary should not
> be installed in the multiarch path, and that's really a good thing given
> how much pain multilib packages are already (especially when people start
> to install libc6-dev-amd64:i386 on an amd64 system or things like that).
That is pretty orthogonal to whether we should require
/usr/local/lib<qual> to exist, which this bug is about, though. :-)
> > I don't see anybody being against relaxing the requirement for
> > /usr/local/lib<qual> to exist, so we're presumably blocked on more
> > seconds.
>
> Ok, great.
A second would be great if you think we should relax the requirement.
Cheers,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: