Re: How important is %{_libdir} to arch-specific but non-multilib packages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Nov 14, 2012 10:36 AM, "Rex Dieter" <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > So what are thoughts on allowing both 32bit and 64bit binaries into
> > %{_prefix}/lib if those binaries are not part of a package that will be
> > %multilib'd?
>
> Personally, the more i think about it, the more it feels right and makes
> sense to allow this.  In essence, one can consider non-multilib'd
> %_prefix/lib and %_libexecdir content to be equal policy-wise.
>

I've thought of one technical thing that is lost if we allow this but it may not be that important.  Currently a sysadmin could install packages on an x86 and then mount the /usr/lib directory on both x86 and x86_64 systems.  This is similar to the rationale the FHS uses for splitting /usr/share/ from %{_libdir}.  It isn't in the FHS, though, so we aren't required to to keep this feature.

-Toshio

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux