On 2011-02-12 17:44:27 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
What's important is consistency. The tools under Debian don't expect libraries to be in **/lib64, but in **/lib. > /me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;) Yes! :) -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110215233512.gk15...@prunille.vinc17.org
