there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying
touch): is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having /lib64 -> /lib /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib but no similar one for /usr/local/lib64, so that directory /usr/local/lib64 gets created if anyone (with enough rights) does 'make install' pointing there; and we do not include /usr/local/lib64 into ldconfig path (by default), so those libraries 'get lost' aren't we diverging from FHS: If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent directories must also exist in /usr/local. ? thanks for the input -- =------------------------------------------------------------------= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 20110204060813.GA16363@onerussian.com">http://lists.debian.org/20110204060813.GA16363@onerussian.com |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> writes:
> please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying > touch): > > is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having > > /lib64 -> /lib > /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib > > but no similar one for /usr/local/lib64, so that directory > /usr/local/lib64 gets created if anyone (with enough rights) does 'make > install' pointing there; and we do not include /usr/local/lib64 into ldconfig > path (by default), so those libraries 'get lost' > > aren't we diverging from FHS: > > If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent directories must also exist in /usr/local. > > ? No reason and yes. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 87ipx0tacz.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/87ipx0tacz.fsf@frosties.localnet |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
I guess then it might be sensible to get /usr/local/lib64 ->
/usr/local/lib . ok -- lets see what libc6 maintainers think about that http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612000 On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > aren't we diverging from FHS: > > If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent directories must also exist in /usr/local. > > ? > No reason and yes. -- =------------------------------------------------------------------= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 20110204151548.GZ8747@onerussian.com">http://lists.debian.org/20110204151548.GZ8747@onerussian.com |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
]] Yaroslav Halchenko
| please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying | touch): | | is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having | | /lib64 -> /lib Yes, it's required by the ABI, unfortunately. | /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib Not really, apart from some broken software that will look for stuff there and be confused if it doesn't exist. I think we should drop it. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 87oc6rk79i.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87oc6rk79i.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
On 2011-02-04 19:02:33 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Yaroslav Halchenko > | /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib > > Not really, apart from some broken software that will look for stuff > there and be confused if it doesn't exist. I think we should drop it. Thanks would be a good thing. Otherwise users should either avoid upstream GCC's or add similar symbolic links for every directory (e.g. $HOME/lib64 -> $HOME/lib if the user installs software in his home directory). FYI, here's the problem I had under Debian because of this symbolic link: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-11/msg00341.html (and followups) -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@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-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 20110211125238.GG15920@prunille.vinc17.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110211125238.GG15920@prunille.vinc17.org |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:33PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Yaroslav Halchenko > | please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying > | touch): > | is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having > | /lib64 -> /lib > Yes, it's required by the ABI, unfortunately. > | /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib > Not really, apart from some broken software that will look for stuff > there and be confused if it doesn't exist. I think we should drop it. 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. /me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
]] Steve Langasek
| 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've just opened such a bug. | /me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;) Yay! :-) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 87lj1ktkpm.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87lj1ktkpm.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
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 <vincent@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-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 20110215233512.GK15920@prunille.vinc17.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110215233512.GK15920@prunille.vinc17.org |
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
severity 613143 wishlist usertags 613143 + normative discussion quit Hi Matthias, Aurelien, Santiago, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Suggested 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> See http://bugs.debian.org/612000 for context. In short, because (upstream, non-Debian) GCC searches all .../lib64 directories before .../lib directories, the search order is out of wack if a /usr/local/lib64 symlink does not exist: - /usr/local/lib64 (which does not exist) - /usr/lib (because /usr/lib64 is a symlink to it) - /lib (because /lib64 is a symlink to it) - /usr/local/lib - /usr/lib again ... That is, /usr/lib gets higher precedence than /usr/local/lib. The technical question before us is whether the libc6 package (or base-files or something) should provide a /usr/local/lib64 -> lib symlink to get out of this mess. Any thoughts? Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: 20110302013154.GA12160@elie">http://lists.debian.org/20110302013154.GA12160@elie |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:10 PM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.