From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QE5F3-0001oE-Gs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:45:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B03A41C026; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CE51C006 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gauss.localnet (ppp-88-217-107-39.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.107.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zzam) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBFA41B4007 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:44:31 +0000 (UTC) From: Matthias Schwarzott To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: libexec directory inconsistency Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.37-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110122170242.GA17407@linux1> <1295724372.2648.92.camel@raven.home.flameeyes.eu> In-Reply-To: <1295724372.2648.92.camel@raven.home.flameeyes.eu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201104242143.17576.zzam@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: f4babc7b0d91aafb666e770401292a2c Getting that discussion back on top. On Samstag, 22. Januar 2011, Diego Elio Petten=C3=B2 wrote: > Il giorno sab, 22/01/2011 alle 11.02 -0600, William Hubbs ha scritto: > > Is there a reason for this? If not, would it break things if we start > > using /libexec as well as /usr/libexec? >=20 > More or less and yes, it would create one more root directory that has > no real usage to be there anyway... >=20 > > I noticed that for dhcpcd and openrc we force their LIBEXECDIR to be > > $(get_libdir)/foo, which puts things in different directories > > depending on whether the system is multilib or not. >=20 > Which is wrong, it should be /lib/foo instead, not $(get_libdir), to > follow what udev and other software in Linux has been using for a very > long time now. Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing udev rule= s to=20 not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev. I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links to /$(get_libdir) an= d=20 multilib-strict requires it, but it seems to be intelligent enough to only= =20 deny 64-bit libs to go to /lib. So proper udev should use /lib/udev, correct? Matthias