Debian Bug report logs - #613143
there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64

Package: debian-policy; Maintainer for debian-policy is Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>; Source for debian-policy is src:debian-policy.

Reported by: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:18:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613143; Package debian-policy. (Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:18:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:18:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:14:11 +0100
Package: debian-policy

]] Steve Langasek 

| On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:33PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > ]] Yaroslav Halchenko 
| 
| > | please do not slap me too hard (only so that I feel your warm carrying
| > | touch):
| 
| > | is there a rationale for: on amd64 Debian systems having
| 
| > | /lib64 -> /lib
| 
| > Yes, it's required by the ABI, unfortunately.
| 
| > | /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib
| 
| > Not really, apart from some broken software  that will look for stuff
| > there and be confused if it doesn't exist.  I think we should drop it.
| 
| How do we square that with the FHS, then?  The FHS says:
| 
|   If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent
|   directories must also exist in /usr/local.
| 
| That seems to require /usr/local/lib64 even if we *don't* include
| /usr/lib64, right?  Should we amend policy to take this exception to the
| FHS?  Please open a bug report on policy if you think we should.

I think this is a bug in the FHS that we need to work around in Debian
policy.  

| /me goes back to making lib64 obsolete ;)

Great! :-)

Suggested change:

--- /proc/self/fd/13	2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
+++ policy.sgml	2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100
@@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@
                   to get access to kernel information.</footnote>
                 </p>
               </item>
+              <item>
+                <p>
+                  The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib&lt;qual&gt;</file>
+                  to exist if <file>/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> or 
+                  <file>/usr/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> exists is removed.
+                </p>
+              </item>
             </enumlist>
 
           </p>

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613143; Package debian-policy. (Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:33:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:33:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 613143@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: libc6@packages.debian.org, gcc@packages.debian.org, base-files@packages.debian.org
Cc: 613143@bugs.debian.org, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>
Subject: Re: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:31:54 -0600
user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
severity 613143 wishlist
usertags 613143 + normative discussion
quit

Hi Matthias, Aurelien, Santiago,

Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> Suggested change:
>
> --- /proc/self/fd/13	2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml	2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100
> @@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@
>                    to get access to kernel information.</footnote>
>                  </p>
>                </item>
> +              <item>
> +                <p>
> +                  The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib&lt;qual&gt;</file>
> +                  to exist if <file>/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> or 
> +                  <file>/usr/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> exists is removed.
> +                </p>
> +              </item>

See http://bugs.debian.org/612000 for context.  In short,
because (upstream, non-Debian) GCC searches all .../lib64 directories
before .../lib directories, the search order is out of wack if a
/usr/local/lib64 symlink does not exist:

 - /usr/local/lib64 (which does not exist)
 - /usr/lib (because /usr/lib64 is a symlink to it)
 - /lib (because /lib64 is a symlink to it)
 - /usr/local/lib
 - /usr/lib again
 ...

That is, /usr/lib gets higher precedence than /usr/local/lib.

The technical question before us is whether the libc6 package (or
base-files or something) should provide a /usr/local/lib64 -> lib
symlink to get out of this mess.

Any thoughts?
Jonathan




Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' Request was from Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:33:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613143; Package debian-policy. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:12:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 613143@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>
Cc: 613143@bugs.debian.org, Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Subject: Re: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:08:33 -0500
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Steve Langasek 

> | How do we square that with the FHS, then?  The FHS says:
> |
> |   If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent
> |   directories must also exist in /usr/local.
> |
> | That seems to require /usr/local/lib64 even if we *don't* include
> | /usr/lib64, right?  Should we amend policy to take this exception to the
> | FHS?  Please open a bug report on policy if you think we should.
>
> I think this is a bug in the FHS that we need to work around in Debian
> policy.  

libc6 2.13-17 removed the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks, so the problem
described in bug#612000 no longer exists and there's no reason to want
a /usr/local/lib64 symlink any more.  We're left in the less worrisome
situation Steve described, with the question of whether to create a
(useless) /usr/local/lib64 directory.

So now I can wholeheartedly endorse your proposed change.

> --- /proc/self/fd/13	2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml	2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100
> @@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@
>                    to get access to kernel information.</footnote>
>                  </p>
>                </item>
> +              <item>
> +                <p>
> +                  The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib&lt;qual&gt;</file>
> +                  to exist if <file>/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> or 
> +                  <file>/usr/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> exists is removed.
> +                </p>
> +              </item>
>              </enumlist>
>  
>            </p>

Seconds?

Thanks,
Jonathan




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#613143; Package debian-policy. (Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 613143@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>, 613143@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>, Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#613143: there is /usr/lib64 symlink but no /usr/local/lib64
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:18:05 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:08:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Steve Langasek 
> 
> > | How do we square that with the FHS, then?  The FHS says:
> > |
> > |   If directories /lib<qual> or /usr/lib<qual> exist, the equivalent
> > |   directories must also exist in /usr/local.
> > |
> > | That seems to require /usr/local/lib64 even if we *don't* include
> > | /usr/lib64, right?  Should we amend policy to take this exception to the
> > | FHS?  Please open a bug report on policy if you think we should.
> >
> > I think this is a bug in the FHS that we need to work around in Debian
> > policy.  
> 
> libc6 2.13-17 removed the /lib64 and /usr/lib64 symlinks, so the problem
> described in bug#612000 no longer exists and there's no reason to want
> a /usr/local/lib64 symlink any more.  We're left in the less worrisome
> situation Steve described, with the question of whether to create a
> (useless) /usr/local/lib64 directory.
> 
> So now I can wholeheartedly endorse your proposed change.
> 
> > --- /proc/self/fd/13	2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> > +++ policy.sgml	2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231567 +0100
> > @@ -5993,6 +5993,13 @@
> >                    to get access to kernel information.</footnote>
> >                  </p>
> >                </item>
> > +              <item>
> > +                <p>
> > +                  The requirement for <file>/usr/local/lib&lt;qual&gt;</file>
> > +                  to exist if <file>/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> or 
> > +                  <file>/usr/lib&lt;qual&gt</file> exists is removed.
> > +                </p>
> > +              </item>
> >              </enumlist>
> >  
> >            </p>
> 
> Seconds?

Seconded. The whole lib64 business was completly backward from the start.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 24 22:21:27 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.