Re: different lib directories for gnutls and nettle

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Niels Möller <address@hidden> 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,
anyway.

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.

regards,
Nikos