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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-45458-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1QEbvQ-0004UP-5M
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:39:08 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E54CE1C05F;
	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B141C04D
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:38:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-26-88.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.26.88])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: mgorny)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E463F1B4036;
	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:38:33 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:38:37 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: zzam@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: libexec directory inconsistency
Message-ID: <20110426083837.6f48f600@pomiocik.lan>
In-Reply-To: <201104242238.13811.zzam@gentoo.org>
References: <20110122170242.GA17407@linux1>
	<201104242143.17576.zzam@gentoo.org>
	<20110424214947.469feebf@pomiocik.lan>
	<201104242238.13811.zzam@gentoo.org>
Organization: Gentoo
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.3; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1;
 boundary="Sig_/Kr58+y_yhqoqIT=6+827iD0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Archives-Salt: 
X-Archives-Hash: 78c3b05581f0adea5ab4a5cb963a2947

--Sig_/Kr58+y_yhqoqIT=6+827iD0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

> On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0200
> >=20
> > Matthias Schwarzott <zzam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing
> > > udev rules to not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev.
> > >=20
> > > I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links
> > > to /$(get_libdir) and multilib-strict requires it, but it seems
> > > to be intelligent enough to only deny 64-bit libs to go to /lib.
> > >=20
> > > So proper udev should use /lib/udev, correct?
> >=20
> > Do you really think it'd be fine for some systems to possibly
> > have /lib64 and /lib with random different contents?
>=20
> 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.

--=20
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--Sig_/Kr58+y_yhqoqIT=6+827iD0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk22aHAACgkQnGSe5QXeB7svXwCg1tIIviX0fX7t9+bOFbBNNAWS
grYAnjKBIMqMLV+qVngcHf5RozuR016k
=mMCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/Kr58+y_yhqoqIT=6+827iD0--