Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #94729 > unrolled thread

weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-10-28 13:21 +0800
    Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 05:43 +0000
      Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-10-28 15:38 +0800
        Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-28 15:38 +0000
          Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-28 15:51 +0000
          Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 13:55 -0700
            Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-28 22:02 +0000
              Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 16:28 -0700
                Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-29 00:05 +0000
                  Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 17:40 -0700
                    Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 11:15 +0000
                  Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 03:32 +0000
                    Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-29 16:48 +0000
                      Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 19:32 +0000
                  Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 11:02 +0000
                Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 10:36 +0000
                  Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 10:47 +0000
          Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-31 10:33 +0000
            Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-31 13:46 +0000
        Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 22:05 +0000
    Re: weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 05:35 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#94729 — weird issue lib/lib64 with Suse

I have a package that was written about 25 years ago. It uses fftw and 
mpich3, which are built with autotools (configure/make/install). They 
would end up in directory target/lib in Centos/Debian/Arch and the 
oddball independent distros, but with Suse to target/lib64. This 
happened with enterprise/Leap/Tumbleweed. So the build scripts had to be 
kludged for Suse.
I hadn't used Tumblweed for a while, but did a fresh install yesterday.
And the problem has apparently been quietly fixed, stuff went to lib.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#94730

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:21:02 +0800, Woozy Song wrote:

> I have a package that was written about 25 years ago. It uses fftw
> and mpich3, which are built with autotools (configure/make/install).
> They would end up in directory target/lib in Centos/Debian/Arch and
> the oddball independent distros, but with Suse to target/lib64. This
> happened with enterprise/Leap/Tumbleweed. So the build scripts had
> to be kludged for Suse.

Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
/usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94731

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:21:02 +0800, Woozy Song wrote:
> 
>> I have a package that was written about 25 years ago. It uses fftw
>> and mpich3, which are built with autotools (configure/make/install).
>> They would end up in directory target/lib in Centos/Debian/Arch and
>> the oddball independent distros, but with Suse to target/lib64. This
>> happened with enterprise/Leap/Tumbleweed. So the build scripts had
>> to be kludged for Suse.
> 
> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin etc.
> 

Yes you define a build directory like /usr/local or /opt
that is what I meant by 'target' in the original post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94742

>> 
>> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
>> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
>> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin etc.
>> 

"should't go?"  "should go?"

On GNU/Linux one can put anything anywhere one damn well pleases.

For the system to automatically locate programs and libraries just
modify the PATH variable and the /etc/ld.so.conf file appropriately.

Of course, one can also invoke a program and libraries directly:

LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/some/place /some/other/place/program

One can also statically link all library routines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94743

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:38:21 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

>>> 
>>> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
>>> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
>>> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin etc.
>>> 
> 
> "should't go?"  "should go?"
> 
> On GNU/Linux one can put anything anywhere one damn well pleases.
>

This harks back to defunct Linux Standard Base (LSB) project which
attempted to define a set of fixed locations across all distros to
ensure compatibility.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base>

Of course, RedHat/Fedora/Debian were drooling with delight as the
prospect.

Eventually, however, LSB was told to TAFFTARD(*).

I put things where I want to put them and nobody tells me otherwise.


(*) Take a Flying Fuck Through a Rolling Doughnut

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94753

Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
>>> 
>>> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
>>> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
>>> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin etc.
>>> 
>
> "should't go?"  "should go?"
>
> On GNU/Linux one can put anything anywhere one damn well pleases.

One can.  That doesn't necessarily mean one should.

You *can* mess around with files under /usr/bin, replacing /usr/bin/cat
with a command that prints an ASCII picture of a cat.  (Assuming
you have root access, of course.)

On my own systems, I don't mess around with anything installed
via the OS package management system.  Software that I build from
source is installed in a custom location that won't collide with
anything managed by the OS.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94754

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:55:46 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

> 
> On my own systems, I don't mess around with anything installed
> via the OS package management system.
>

Then they are not your "own systems."  They belong to the distro
and you have no control whatsoever.

I am so sorry to have to disturb your dreams.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94758

Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:55:46 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> On my own systems, I don't mess around with anything installed
>> via the OS package management system.
>
> Then they are not your "own systems."  They belong to the distro
> and you have no control whatsoever.
>
> I am so sorry to have to disturb your dreams.

No need to apologize, other than for being completely wrong.

I personally own the computer on which I'm typing this.  I've
chosen to install a particular OS on it (it happens to be Ubuntu).
I choose not to mess around with the contents of /usr/bin and
similar directories, delegating their management to Ubuntu's package
management system.  I make this choice only for my own convenience.

If I replaced /usr/bin/cat with a script that shows an ASCII image
of a cat, I would inconvenience myself, but I would not be violating
any law or property rights.  Same thing if I wiped the system and
installed a different distro, or if I just dropped the hard drive
into an industrial shredder.

If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94759

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

> 
> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
> what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
> reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>

They have chosen for you both systemd and wayland and you are essentially
powerless to refuse.

But I will not venture into a protracted, and fruitless, battle about the
de facto control of GNU/Linux other than to state that the mainstream
distros have far too much power and that this power is a serious threat
to the long-term freedom. 

The original point of this thread was where executables and libraries
should be located.  I merely indicated, correctly, that there is no "should
be" and that the user is free to choose any locations at will.

The user creates the distro and not vice versa.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94763

Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
>> what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
>> reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>
> They have chosen for you both systemd and wayland

Yes.

>                                                   and you are essentially
> powerless to refuse.

That's so self-evidently wrong that I don't know how to respond to it.
Maybe there's some truth buried under the nonsense, but I'm not going to
expend the effort to find it.

(There are Linux distros that use neither systemd nor wayland.)

> But I will not venture into a protracted, and fruitless, battle about the
> de facto control of GNU/Linux other than to state that the mainstream
> distros have far too much power and that this power is a serious threat
> to the long-term freedom. 

That might be a sensible argument.  It's certainly something that can be
discussed.  But probably not with you.

> The original point of this thread was where executables and libraries
> should be located.  I merely indicated, correctly, that there is no "should
> be" and that the user is free to choose any locations at will.
>
> The user creates the distro and not vice versa.

Didn't you just say I was powerless to refuse?

I choose to use Ubuntu on my system (a physical computer that
I own).  I *could* install random stuff in /usr/bin if I wanted to.
I consider it to be a bad idea, because messing up OS-installed
packages would be inconvenient for me.  If you want to install
random stuff in /usr/bin on your system, you can do so.  I would
advise most people not to do that.  If nothing else, your changes
can be clobbered by package updates.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94840

Le 29-10-2026, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
> [...]
> That's so self-evidently wrong that 

It looks like you don't know LH/LP/NV/whatever. Because yes, it's his
way. To be always wrong about everything. It's so consistent it can't be
random.

> I don't know how to respond to it.

You do what you want but don't expect to have a serious discussion with
him. He's a well known troll. He pretends to be a lot of things but
every evidence he ever gave proved he's wrong about everything. He
pretends to be a Linux advocates but I don't believe that, I'm sure his
a Windows advocates. His way on trying to defending Linux making Linux
users looking like fools is too obvious to be honest.

> Maybe there's some truth buried under the nonsense,

No, there are not.

> but I'm not going to expend the effort to find it.

Good idea.

> (There are Linux distros that use neither systemd nor wayland.)

And they are often based on mainstream distros using systemd and wayland
at the same time. Which is a proof that one can remove systemd and
wayland from a mainstream distro. 

> That might be a sensible argument.  It's certainly something that can be
> discussed.  But probably not with you.

You are a fast learner.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94770

On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:05:20 +0000, Leroy H wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
>> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
>> what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
>> reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>>
>>
> They have chosen for you both systemd and wayland and you are
> essentially powerless to refuse.

MX Linux allows me to select either Wayland or X11 at login and to set the 
boot options to either systemd or sysVinit.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94776

On 2026-10-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:05:20 +0000, Leroy H wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
>>> what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
>>> reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>>>
>>>
>> They have chosen for you both systemd and wayland and you are
>> essentially powerless to refuse.
>
> MX Linux allows me to select either Wayland or X11 at login and to set the 
> boot options to either systemd or sysVinit.  

Devuan is basically Debian with init system choice.  I'm running
sysvinit and X11.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94779

On 29 Oct 2026 16:48:49 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> On 2026-10-29, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:05:20 +0000, Leroy H wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority
>>>> over what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear
>>>> your reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They have chosen for you both systemd and wayland and you are
>>> essentially powerless to refuse.
>>
>> MX Linux allows me to select either Wayland or X11 at login and to set
>> the boot options to either systemd or sysVinit.
> 
> Devuan is basically Debian with init system choice.  I'm running
> sysvinit and X11.

I switched to X11 on the MX box. KDE Plasma 6.3.6 does better with X11 on 
that system. With Wayland Brave worked but was using a lot of CPU and an 
Amazon page would eventually crash. Firefox would crash on takeoff. Mint 
has an experimental Wayland session but that didn't work well either.

I haven't had a problem with Wayland on Ubuntu or Fedora other than QGIS 
warning about potential problems with dialogs. 

I did leave it with systemd since I don't have a strong preference. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94839

Le 29-10-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 16:28:41 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> 
>> If you think Ubuntu, Canonical, or any other entity has authority over
>> what I do on hardware that I personally own, I'd love to hear your
>> reasoning.  I'm curious where you got this odd idea.
>
> They have chosen for you both systemd 

Yes, but as one can chose a distro based on its init system, it's not a
one way choice. You would need a brain to understand that.

> and wayland 

For that, it's only your lack of knowledge speaking. It shows.

> and you are essentially powerless to refuse.

You are speaking about your limitations and you believe that everyone is
as limited as you. But the opposite is true. You are powerless to do
things on your own terms, you manage only to break your Linux
installation, then you fall back on Windows and come whining about how
Red Hat, Ubuntu, Wayland and systemd are all fighting your freedom. When
the reality is: the above cited never heard about you, never cared about
what you do with your computer and are unrelated with your own
limitation.

> But I will not venture into a protracted, and fruitless, battle about the
> de facto control of GNU/Linux other than to state that the mainstream
> distros have far too much power and that this power is a serious threat
> to the long-term freedom. 

The real threat to your long-term freedom are your lack of brain, your
lack of knowledge, your inability to learn and your love of Windows.

> The original point of this thread was where executables and libraries
> should be located.

Yes. 
> I merely indicated, correctly, that there is no "should
> be" and that the user is free to choose any locations at will.

s/correctly/wrongly/

> The user creates the distro and not vice versa.

That's the reason why you fall back on Windows more often than not. The
user choses the distro which is the closest possible to his needs. Then
the user adapt the distro smartly to fit his exact needs.

And with that, the user can spend his own time using his computer and
let the distro manage the burden of the updates for him.

The only reason why you can fall back on Windows is because Microsoft
doesn't allow you to change anything on your Windows computer and so you
are unable to mess up with it and you can't break it as you manage to
break your Linux.

The most impressive thing about you, is the more you break your
computer, the more you pretend it's the best way.

And in fact the reason why I'm sure you are a Windows advocate
pretending to be a Linux advocate, is you are inciting people to break
their computers to abandon Linux and go back to Windows. What I'm not
sure is if you are paid by Microsoft.

I'm not saying that Microsoft is paying you to spread your stupidity
her, I don't guess they would care about that. I'm saying that I believe
you are a Microsoft employee using your spare time to undermine Linux.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94831

Le 28-10-2026, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> writes:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 13:55:46 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> On my own systems, I don't mess around with anything installed
>>> via the OS package management system.
>>
>> Then they are not your "own systems."  They belong to the distro
>> and you have no control whatsoever.
>>
>> I am so sorry to have to disturb your dreams.
>
> No need to apologize, other than for being completely wrong.

It's an habit with him.

> If you think 

No. He doesn't think. He claims, he pretends, but he doesn't know and he
doesn't think.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94835

On 31/10/2026 10:36, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> If you think
> No. He doesn't think. He claims, he pretends, but he doesn't know and he
> doesn't think.

Sadly, that describes around 90% of the population, especially those who 
*think* only that they are intelligent...


-- 
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper 
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating 
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its 
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of 
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must 
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94830

Le 28-10-2026, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distr
>>> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
>>> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin e
>>> 
>
> "should't go?"  "should go?"
>
> On GNU/Linux one can put anything anywhere one damn well pleases.

Because one can doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. I remember a
time, not so long ago, where you were unable to buy your own food. The
only reason involved was your messing up the default without
understanding them. And the way you found for fixing Firefox, was to
remove the improvements you brought to Firefox. Blaming Firefox and th
food sellers for your own incompetence.

> For the system to automatically locate programs and libraries just
> modify the PATH variable and the /etc/ld.so.conf file appropriately.
>
> Of course, one can also invoke a program and libraries directly:
>
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/some/place /some/other/place/program
>
> One can also statically link all library routines.

First you learn, then you'll be able to give advices. Right now, the
best advice that can be given to anyone is to avoid following your
advices. It can't even be harmful to do the opposite of what you say.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94843

On 31 Oct 2026 10:33:21 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>
>> "should't go?"  "should go?"
>>
>> On GNU/Linux one can put anything anywhere one damn well pleases.
> 
> Because one can doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.
>

GNU/Linux is completely configurable from the ground up and this
is the sole, simple point that I am making.

I could create a viable GNU/Linux installation that placed all
executables in "/myexecs" and all libraries in "/mylibs" and nothing
would be amiss.  It would involve a lot of detailed configuration
but it could be done.  (Note: _I_ could do it but _you_ could never
do it because you lack understanding and are forever dependent on the
mainstream distros.)


>
> I remember a
> time, not so long ago, where you were unable to buy your own food. The
> only reason involved was your messing up the default without
> understanding them.
>

Your memory is distorted.  This is totally false.  In fact, this constitutes
malicious slander and I could easily sue your ass for defamation in a court
of law.


>
> And the way you found for fixing Firefox, was to
> remove the improvements you brought to Firefox. Blaming Firefox and th
> food sellers for your own incompetence.
> 

I had challenged you at the time to actually visit the same web
site with your immaculate, untouched version of Firefox.  You
would have experienced the same problem, but you refused to do so.
You refused because you were afraid that I would be, as usual,
shown to be absolutely correct.

The web site was junk.  They must have consulted with your company
during the design.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94755

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 15:38:50 +0800, Woozy Song wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Stuff you’re building from source, without going through the distro
>> package management, shouldn’t go in /lib or /bin or /usr/lib or
>> /usr/bin etc: they should go in /usr/local/lib or /usr/local/bin
>> etc.
>
> Yes you define a build directory like /usr/local or /opt
> that is what I meant by 'target' in the original post.

My /usr/local has no lib64 etc architecture-dependent directories in
it.

Actually on Debian multiarch the directory name would be
“x86-64-linux-gnu”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web