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 1QE5zX-0006sN-Q0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:33:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26D091C088; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738551C0AE for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:31:44 +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 A77491B4002 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:31:42 +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 22:30:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.37-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110122170242.GA17407@linux1> <201104242143.17576.zzam@gentoo.org> <4DB48322.2050307@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4DB48322.2050307@gentoo.org> 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: 7bit Message-Id: <201104242230.31427.zzam@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 83e0e5389c995cd23189c195728bd931 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