[Olsr-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] linux: use /usr/lib64 on 64bit machines if it exists

[Ferry Huberts]

On 11-05-12 08:01, Henning Rogge wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 10:04 PM, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>> On 10-05-12 21:47, Ferry Huberts wrote:
>>> From: Ferry Huberts<(spam-protected)>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ferry Huberts<(spam-protected)>
>>> ---
>>> make/Makefile.linux | 8 +++++++-
>>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/make/Makefile.linux b/make/Makefile.linux
>>> index e73be7c..fa729ba 100644
>>> --- a/make/Makefile.linux
>>> +++ b/make/Makefile.linux
>>> @@ -4,7 +4,13 @@
>>>
>>> ARCH := $(shell uname -m)
>>> DESTDIR ?=
>>> -LIBDIR = $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib
>>> +LIBDIR = $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib
>>> +ifeq ($(strip $(ARCH)),x86_64)
>>> + LIB64DIR := $(shell test -d "/usr/lib64"&& echo "YES")
>>> + ifeq ($(strip $(LIB64DIR)),YES)
>>> + LIBDIR = /usr/lib64
>>
>> damn, a typo here. must stop working now...
>> > + LIBDIR = $(DESTDIR)/usr/lib64
>
> and the shell test must be changed too... I wonder if its worth the

You mean the 'no space before the &&'? That appears to have been deleted 
by accident by me, it's there in the original patch.

> effort, is there any distribution that does not have the /usr/lib
> directory?
>

Yes, _all_ Red Hat/Fedora variants

The point is that these distributions are true multi-arch and separate 
their 32 and 64 bit libraries by means of these directories.
Always using /usr/lib would prevent simultaneous install of both 
versions of a library, and does not comply with their guidelines.

I'm going to push these patches, any more comments?


> Another option to do it would be to introduce an environment variable
> called LIBDIRSUFFIX, then all our installer scripts could use
>
> LIBDIRSUFFIX := $(shell test -d "/usr/lib64" && echo "64")
> LIBDIR = /usr/lib$(LIBDIRSUFFIX)
>
> Henning Rogge
>
>>> + endif
>>> +endif
>>>
>>> SRCS += $(wildcard src/linux/*.c src/unix/*.c)
>>> HDRS += $(wildcard src/linux/*.h src/unix/*.h)
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Ferry Huberts