Bug 229072

Summary:	/usr/bin/boo{c,i,ish} point to assemblies in /usr/lib, not /usr/lib64
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Paul T. Darga <pdarga>
Component:	boo	Assignee:	Paul F. Johnson <paul>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-02-18 00:18:20 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Paul T. Darga 2007-02-16 19:56:20 UTC

Description of problem:

Boo shell scripts point to /usr/lib but assemblies live in /usr/lib64.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.7.6.2237-11.fc6

e.g. /usr/bin/booc reads:

#!/bin/sh
env mono /usr/lib/boo/booc.exe "$@"

However, booc.exe is in /usr/lib64/boo.

Comment 1 Paul F. Johnson 2007-02-16 20:07:25 UTC

Yep - fixed in rawhide (just use that version). There is a problem with the PPC
mono on the buildsys which is preventing mono apps being built currently.

Comment 2 Paul T. Darga 2007-02-16 20:28:57 UTC

I just did an update from extras-development, and the /usr/bin files in question
now have ${libdir} in them, which would seem to be a packaging problem, since I
don't have libdir in my environment.  Of course it should be the literal
/usr/lib64.  The source rpm must be busted...

Comment 3 Paul F. Johnson 2007-02-16 21:04:59 UTC

What's the version number of the rpm?

Comment 4 Paul T. Darga 2007-02-16 21:09:39 UTC

A yum fairy whispered 0.7.6.2237-12.fc7 in my ear.