On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 22:23 +0200, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 13:14 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
todd rme wrote:
This is still basically an aesthetic argument. Is there any functional reason to change this? Is there anything that is currently not working that would work better under this scenario? How many packages currently need workaround to install properly that would not need such workarounds under your scenario?
-Todd
---- There are about 1300+ packages in my /usr/lib64 dir. The default on packages coming with config would have been /usr/lib.
That's 1300 packages that had a have a special patch applied (75% of total).
Seems like not having to go out of one's way to patch away from what is the 'normal expected path', would be more than aesthetics....
FWIW, with opensuse, the 'fhs' package is an optional install.
There is no requirement that openSuSE without fhs installed be FHS compatible, is there?
No patching needed...
rpm --eval %configure
=> the the --libdir parameter?
Oh, before you go an patch away the /usr/lib64 there: keep in mind what would happen with the biarch install. See this example: - I run a x86_64 system - I have /usr/lib64/libfoo.so.1 installed (from libfoo1-1.0-xx86_64.rpm) - I install application bar. It's nicely shipped as a binary, as it's a commercial application, non-free, non-open.. yet, I need it. But: oh dang: it's a 32bit application... and it requires libfoo.so.1; obviously, it can't load the one I have in my system. so, in openSUSE, I go and install libfoo1-32bit, et voila! I'm done and I can start 'bar'. Pretty cool, eh? Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org