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 1QG9LW-0003bG-Dd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:32:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1ADC71C0C0; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CB61C07B for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gauss.localnet (ppp-88-217-111-54.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.111.54]) (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 29F122AC008 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:31:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Matthias Schwarzott To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev installs now to /lib/udev (was: rfc: libexec directory inconsistency) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:30:49 +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> <201104242143.17576.zzam@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201104242143.17576.zzam@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: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201104301430.50680.zzam@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d1c5c108ee8260e58f219ed71bff7c1a On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: > Getting that discussion back on top. >=20 > 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 $(get_libdir), to > > follow what udev and other software in Linux has been using for a very > > long time now. >=20 > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing udev > rules to not use /$(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 sys-fs/udev-168 does now install to /lib/udev unconditionally. Regards Matthias