David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes: > Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
>>> - No package for a 64 bit architecture may install files in >>> - ``/usr/lib64/`` or in a subdirectory of it. >>> + Packages must not install files in ``/usr/lib64`` or in a subdirectory >>> + of it. >> >> This seems to be a semantic change, generalising the requirement to all >> packages? > Well, I think you're both right. A lawyerly reading of policy might say > 32 bit packages can install in /usr/lib64, but wouldn't that just be > nonsensical, and maybe contradict other wording about FHS conformance Yeah, that was my thought process, but I did totally break my own rule. I can break this out into a separate change if that makes more sense. I was trying to reword the sentence to avoid using "no ... may" and trying to keep the 64-bit qualification seemed very awkward. /usr/lib64 is for 64-bit architecture support the Red Hat way (instead of the Debian multiarch approach), so no 32-bit package would ever legitimately install files there. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
