Bug 229072 – /usr/bin/boo{c,i,ish} point to assemblies in /usr/lib, not /usr/lib64

Bug 229072 - /usr/bin/boo{c,i,ish} point to assemblies in /usr/lib, not /usr/lib64

Summary:	/usr/bin/boo{c,i,ish} point to assemblies in /usr/lib, not /usr/lib64

Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Fedora
Classification:	Fedora
Component:	boo (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	6
Hardware:	x86_64 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Paul F. Johnson
QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2007-02-16 14:56 EST by Paul T. Darga
Modified:	2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-02-17 19:18:20 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Paul T. Darga 2007-02-16 14:56:20 EST

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 15:07:25 EST

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 15:28:57 EST

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 16:04:59 EST

What's the version number of the rpm?

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

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

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