On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:38:13 +0200 Matthias Schwarzott <z...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sonntag, 24. April 2011, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:43:16 +0200 > > > > Matthias Schwarzott <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Sounds like we should fix udev ebuild and some ebuilds installing > > > udev rules to not use /$(get_libdir)/udev, but plain /lib/udev. > > > > > > I used that in believe that /lib is identical or links > > > to /$(get_libdir) and multilib-strict requires it, but it seems > > > to be intelligent enough to only deny 64-bit libs to go to /lib. > > > > > > So proper udev should use /lib/udev, correct? > > > > Do you really think it'd be fine for some systems to possibly > > have /lib64 and /lib with random different contents? > > Well I was always under the impression that /lib64 and /lib did point > to the same directory. > Is the case where /lib is no symlink to /lib64 so frequent? Sorry for replying that late. The 'main' multilib profile was switched to have 64-bit libs in lib64 and 32-bit ones in lib lately. I'm not sure if it used by any real profile though. And I think that non-multlib amd64 has lib64 only. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
