Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements

[David Bremner <david@tethera.net>]

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:

>
>> -    No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files in
>> -    ``/usr/lib64/`` or in a subdirectory of it.
>> +    Packages must not install files in ``/usr/lib64`` or in a subdirectory
>> +    of it.
>
> This seems to be a semantic change, generalising the requirement to all
> packages?

Well, I think you're both right. A lawyerly reading of policy might say
32 bit packages can install in /usr/lib64, but wouldn't that just be
nonsensical, and maybe contradict other wording about FHS conformance