Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: libexec directory inconsistency

[Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@gentoo.org>]

On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/24/2011 10:43 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > Getting that discussion back on top.
> > 
> >> Which is wrong, it should be /lib/foo instead, not $(get_libdir), to
> >> follow what udev and other software in Linux has been using for a very
> >> long time now.
> > 
> > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing udev
> > rules to not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev.
> 
> Right, doesn't make sense to have both 32bit and 64bit ELF's for udev,
> so we should stick with /lib/udev.
> 
> > I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links to /$(get_libdir)
> > and multilib-strict requires it, but it seems to be intelligent enough
> > to only deny 64-bit libs to go to /lib.
> > 
> > So proper udev should use /lib/udev, correct?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> The udev situation is really a mess tree-wide, we have ebuilds
> installing into 3 different directories now:
> 
> /etc/udev              (where user puts his local rules)
> /$(get_libdir)/udev    (as explained above)
> /lib/udev              (the correct one)
> 
> Check the Portage to see the sad status of inconsistency:
> 
> $ grep -r 'etc.*udev' */*/*.ebuild
> $ grep -r 'get_libdir.*udev' */*/*.ebuild

And this does not even catch the cases where Makefiles (eventuelly together 
with configure-parameters) install to any of these three locations.

By the way, the bug that led me to think about the install location is this 
Bug #363549

Matthias