Created attachment 111258 [details]
x86_64 specfile patch

Created attachment 111259 [details]
x86_64 specfile patch (take 2)

patch that actually works this time (previous had an extraneous %endif)

Rex, there is a typo in you patch in the files section (search for "m2hoome")

Im also unsure if I like this solution. Especially if we can tolerate this file
in /usr/lib/:

/usr/lib/Macaulay2-0.9.2/libexec/Macaulay2: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD
x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared
libs), stripped

Michael, what do you think?

If Macaulay2 builds for x86_64 and we don't ship an i386 Macaulay2 in the x86_64
Extras repo, there's no need to relocate it further. This package does not
provide any 64-bit or 32-bit libraries shared with other 64-bit or 32-bit
applications. Since this is an application package and not a library provider,
it cannot coexist (as in "parallel installable") with an i386 Macaulay2 anyway.
Other x86_64 packages put executables into their home directories below
/usr/lib/foo, too, btw. E.g. xcdroast.

As a side-note, if one really wanted to, it shouldn't be a problem to move
/usr/lib/Macaulay2-0.9.2/libexec to /usr/lib64/Macaulay2-0.9.2/libexec and
adjust /usr/bin/M2 accordingly. Is there any other place where the libexec
directory is hardcoded?

(In reply to comment #4)
> If Macaulay2 builds for x86_64 and we don't ship an i386 Macaulay2 in the x86_64
> Extras repo, there's no need to relocate it further.

Thanks for the clarification -- I was unsure on that. 

Rex, shall I commit the patch to cvs and request a build? Afaik your paperwork
for cvs is still in the works?

Yes, yes, respectively (don't know what the cvs holdup is... the last contact I
had was March 5th...)

Commited. Will request build tomorrow.

Build was done and succeed yesterday after problems with the buildsystem before.
Please close (I can't)