From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:23:26 +0200 Subject: [Cocci] release: 1.0.1: Checking installation dependencies In-Reply-To: References: <55845D5F.6010408@users.sourceforge.net> <55852F40.4000502@users.sourceforge.net> <5588106D.7020305@gmail.com> <558818EE.8000900@users.sourceforge.net> <55892843.7070001@gmail.com> <55892D6D.5000001@users.sourceforge.net> <20150623172811.GU11147@wotan.suse.de> <5593A5BE.7090308@gmail.com> <559402D7.7020203@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: <5594E6EE.90202@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > What does "Yes, in principle" mean? My knowledge might be still incomplete for this issue. > Did you actually change anything to lib64, or specify lib64 on a command line, No. > because you considered that on your 64 bit system that was the better choice? I find such technical detail still ordinary. > Because there are hard coded instances of lib in the various configuration files. Would it make sense to change this? > So it seems hard to understand how a hard coded occurrence of lib > could be transformed into lib64. How do you think about to add any dedicated configuration options? Are additional variables needed? Does this specific name "lib" refer to the well-known directory where shared libraries should usually be stored? Regards, Markus