On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:08:58AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Aurelien Jarno > > > How can we progress on this bug? We now have bugs #720777, #720778 and > > #720780 which ask for /usr/lib<qual> to be created if /lib<qual> exists. > > It's something that can be implemented, but before doing so, I would > > like to know if a decision has been taken wrt the policy. > > I think the whole lib<qual> thing should be avoided and we should nack > it for any new ports. Ideally, we should also try to get ourselves out > of the hole we've dug ourselves into. > > I don't see anybody being against relaxing the requirement for > /usr/local/lib<qual> to exist, so we're presumably blocked on more > seconds.
Indeed, for policy to move forward we need input from knowledgeable developers. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140508120015.GC6365@yellowpig
