[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements



Hello,

On Mon 18 Nov 2019 at 05:34PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Yeah, that was my thought process, but I did totally break my own rule.  I
> can break this out into a separate change if that makes more sense.  I was
> trying to reword the sentence to avoid using "no ... may" and trying to
> keep the 64-bit qualification seemed very awkward.
>
> /usr/lib64 is for 64-bit architecture support the Red Hat way (instead of
> the Debian multiarch approach), so no 32-bit package would ever
> legitimately install files there.

Let's go ahead and make the change as part of resolving this bug, but
let's also mention the semantic change in the upgrading checklist, just
in case there is some strange edge case we've missed.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: