Bug 127691 - boost libraries are in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64
boost libraries are in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: boost (Show other bugs)
x86_64 Linux
medium Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Benjamin Kosnik
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-07-12 12:50 EDT by Dag Wieers
Modified: 2013-08-09 01:46 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-03-16 18:14:31 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Dag Wieers 2004-07-12 12:50:27 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6)
Gecko/20040510 Galeon/1.3.16

Description of problem:
The boost libraries on x86_64 are in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64.
Although the binaries actually are 64bit.

    [root@fc2a /]# rpm -qf /usr/lib/libboost_date_time.so.1.31.0

    [root@fc2a /]# file /usr/lib/libboost_date_time.so.1.31.0
    /usr/lib/libboost_date_time.so.1.31.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
object, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), stripped

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. - 

Additional info:
Comment 1 Benjamin Kosnik 2004-11-29 13:50:57 EST
This should be fixed with the -9 version of the package, in FC3. The
boost rpm now uses _libdir, so this should be correct.

Can you please confirm?

Comment 2 Benjamin Kosnik 2004-11-30 12:35:05 EST
Dag, I've updated boost to the 1.32.0 release. Can you confirm that
these packages (should be pushed out soon)


Have fixed this issue?

Comment 3 Dag Wieers 2004-11-30 18:28:01 EST
I made a quick rebuild on x86_64 and it seems ok.

[root@lisse src]# rpm -qpl /tmp/x86_64/boost-1.32.0-1.x86_64.rpm

What worries me, is that the .so files are missing from the -devel
package. I'm not sure if this is the intended behaviour, rpm silently
ignores symlinks, so you may have forgotten them.

If they don't exist, either you'll have unowned files in _libdir, or
people cannot dynamically link to them at compile time.
Comment 4 Benjamin Kosnik 2004-12-02 12:10:11 EST
Dag, I understand your .so comment now. Fixing...

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.