2011/7/14 Justin Davis :

I think that you mean /usr/lib/pcsx2 instead of /var/lib/pcsx2. (...)

Indeed, thanks for correcting me.

Using two different folders depending on the host architecture is overly complicated. The advantage of a "lib32" directory name is to separate lib32 dynamic libs from 64-bit dynamic libs right? There's no need to separate plugins if there is no chance of them getting accidentally used. They cannot be passively used but must be actively sought out in the predefined location. I don't use multilib so I may be wrong.

It happens that if you are in 64-bit Arch, you will build for PCSX2 32-bit plugins. If you are in 32-bit Arch, you will also build 32-bit plugins. The difference is that [multilib] system (only for 64-bit system) has 32-bit lib files at /usr/lib32 - separated from 64-bit lib files. If the plugins are 32-bit, it's logical to put them in /usr/lib/pcsx2 in 32-bit system. But in 64-bit system, I'm not sure if they whether I should put them in /usr/lib or /usrlib32/ (inside "pcsx2" folder, of course). Installing this package's plugin folder differently according to architecture seems weird. - I could be wrong.

-- -Justin

Rafael

On 15 July 2011 16:35, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 15 July 2011 10:32, rafael ff1 wrote:

...

If the plugins are 32-bit, it's logical to put them in /usr/lib/pcsx2 in 32-bit system. But in 64-bit system, I'm not sure if they whether I should put them in /usr/lib or /usrlib32/ (inside "pcsx2" folder, of course).

32-bit libs-related stuff belong in /usr/lib32 on Arch64, nowhere else.

See file list of http://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/lib32-alsa-plugins/ -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10