Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Steve Langasek > | How do we square that with the FHS, then? The FHS says: > | > | If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent > | directories must also exist in /usr/local. > | > | That seems to require /usr/local/lib64 even if we *don't* include > | /usr/lib64, right? Should we amend policy to take this exception to the > | FHS? Please open a bug report on policy if you think we should. > > I think this is a bug in the FHS that we need to work around in Debian > policy.
libc6 2.13-17 removed the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks, so the problem described in bug#612000 no longer exists and there's no reason to want a /usr/local/lib64 symlink any more. We're left in the less worrisome situation Steve described, with the question of whether to create a (useless) /usr/local/lib64 directory. So now I can wholeheartedly endorse your proposed change. > --- /proc/self/fd/13 2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100 > +++ policy.sgml 2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100 > @@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@ > to get access to kernel information.</footnote> > </p> > </item> > + <item> > + <p> > + The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib<qual></file> > + to exist if <file>/lib<qual></file> or > + <file>/usr/lib<qual></file> exists is removed. > + </p> > + </item> > </enumlist> > > </p> Seconds? Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
