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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 07:36 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >Personally, the more i think about it, the more it feels right and makes
> >sense to allow this.  In essence, one can consider non-multilib'd
> >%_prefix/lib and %_libexecdir content to be equal policy-wise.
> 
> I do not agree. %_libexecdir is policy-wise similar to %_bindir (non
> multilib'ed).
> 
True but -- we already allow %{_libdir}/UNIQUENAME as a standin for
%{_libexecdir}/UNIQUENAME even though what goes there is non-multilib'd.  So
it doesn't seem harmful to allow %{_prefix}/lib as an alternate for the
non-multilib'd case as well.

-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/20121119/21b303d3/attachment.sig>