user debian-pol...@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<qual></file> > + to exist if <file>/lib<qual></file> or > + <file>/usr/lib<qual></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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110302013154.GA12160@elie
