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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:38:13 +0200
Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0200
> > 
> > Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing
> > > udev rules to not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev.
> > > 
> > > I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links
> > > to /$(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?
> > 
> > Do you really think it'd be fine for some systems to possibly
> > have /lib64 and /lib with random different contents?
> 
> Well I was always under the impression that /lib64 and /lib did point
> to the same directory.
> Is the case where /lib is no symlink to /lib64 so frequent?

Sorry for replying that late.

The 'main' multilib profile was switched to have 64-bit libs in lib64
and 32-bit ones in lib lately. I'm not sure if it used by any real
profile though.

And I think that non-multlib amd64 has lib64 only.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]