]] Aurelien Jarno > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > ]] Aurelien Jarno > > > > > How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and > > > #720780 which ask for /usr/lib<qual> to be created if /lib<qual> exists. > > > It's something that can be implemented, but before doing so, I would > > > like to know if a decision has been taken wrt the policy. > > > > I think the whole lib<qual> thing should be avoided and we should nack > > it for any new ports. Ideally, we should also try to get ourselves out > > of the hole we've dug ourselves into. > > Unfortunately given we still want to keep multilib compilers in the > archive, we need to provide foreign binaries, and thus install them in > lib<qual>. The policy clearly states that a foreign binary should not > be installed in the multiarch path, and that's really a good thing given > how much pain multilib packages are already (especially when people start > to install libc6-dev-amd64:i386 on an amd64 system or things like that).
That is pretty orthogonal to whether we should require /usr/local/lib<qual> to exist, which this bug is about, though. :-) > > I don't see anybody being against relaxing the requirement for > > /usr/local/lib<qual> to exist, so we're presumably blocked on more > > seconds. > > Ok, great. A second would be great if you think we should relax the requirement. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87zjis5s6u....@xoog.err.no
