[Fedora-packaging] How important is %{_libdir} to arch-specific but non-multilib packages

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:41:40AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 10:40 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >On 11/15/2012 10:20 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:03:30AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>>>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.
> >>>We already allow folks to use /usr/lib/%{name} and %_libexecdir
> >>>interchangeably (don't we?),
> >>
> >>I think that's the question at hand, actually.
> >
> >See
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Libexecdir
> >
> >
> >not exactly 100% interchangeable ... but already does allow /usr/lib/...
> >in the cases where libexecdir isn't directly supported
> 
> oh, I totally misread that, *nevermind*.  the guideline says
> %{_libdir}/%{name}
> 
Right.  And if we decide that this is okay in general we'll probably update
that guideline to allow any of %{_libexedir}, %{_libdir}, or %{_prefix}/lib
to be used.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20121115/675dab6e/attachment.sig>