Re: different lib directories for gnutls and nettle
Tomas Mraz <tmraz <at> redhat.com>
2011-04-14 09:05:12 GMT
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 10:55 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Niels Möller <nisse <at> lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> >> Nettle should work better with other GNU packages if it follows the
> >> GNU standards, as the assumption of lib/ as a default is a common one
> >> in other configure scripts.
> > I don't change the default lightly, but I still think it's the right
> > thing to do when
> > 1. The user has not provided --libdir explicitly.
> > 2. One is building on a multi-abi system, which is a case where the
> > autoconf default doesn't even try to do the right thing.
> > 3. The autoconf default is known to be wrong.
> I don't really find this a serious problem because libdir can be
> provided by the one performing compilation and fix any issues,
> As a matter of policy though, I think the FHS way of
> storing in /usr/lib 32-bit binaries, even if the default system compiler
> outputs 64-bit binaries, is quite absurd, and looks like a relic from
> the era that binary only programs came with 32-bit intel code only.
> Systems like debian correctly for me do not follow this approach
> because it has no benefit for the user of a multi-lib system and only
> causes confusion, as programs in /usr/bin do not use libraries in
> /usr/lib. What you call a multi-lib system
> is actually a system with a native word size and a compatibility
> mode with another (smaller) word size. Why one not using
> the compatibility mode have an empty /usr/lib? This requirement
> is intended only for the one distributing ancient 32-bit binaries and
> I see no compelling reason for free software or open systems to
> follow that by default.