Re: Linking /lib64 to /usr/lib

[Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 9:45 AM Lennart Poettering
<lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Di, 21.02.23 16:00, Adrian Vovk (adrianvovk@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Would you accept a patch to shared/base-filesystem that makes /usr/lib
> > a fallback link target for /lib64? On my distro I don't support
> > multilib at all and so everything ends up in /usr/lib.
> >
> > So for example, for x86_64 I'd change the target from
> > "usr/lib/"LIB_ARCH_TUPLE"\0" "usr/lib64\0" to
> > "usr/lib/"LIB_ARCH_TUPLE"\0" "usr/lib64\0" "usr/lib\0", and ditto for
> > all the other architectures. That way no matter what, /lib64 always
> > exists when necessary.
>
> I guess that makes some sense on a pure /lib/ file system. Send a
> patch.
>
> (I mean, honestly, I personally wouldn't bother, and just usr /lib64/
> as fedora does and no populate /lib/ with libraries. I mean, it's just
> names, and the ABI is how the ABI is. But regardless, a patch using
> /lib/ as final fallback we search for ld.so in sounds acceptable.)
>
> Submit via github.
>

I don't think that's a good idea. Aside from violating the FHS, it
creates an unexpected problem where multilib or multi-arch *is*
available. If Adrian wants to do that on his own distribution, that's
fine. But as a generic patch in upstream systemd? No way. It would
probably need to be reverted in Fedora and openSUSE (at the minimum)
to prevent chaos.

Adrian, my advice to you: don't do it. Violating the principle of
least surprise is not a good idea.

I would just recommend not having a /usr/lib at all in your system.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!