Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:24:56PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This could easily be changed to '/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' or
> something else. However, as I understand it, the current
> FHS/LSB standards require the 64bit program interpreter to be in
> '/lib64'. But this will certainly change once the FHS and LSB
> implement the multiarch proposal. Maybe we should make a real
> '/lib64' directory (not a symlink to '/lib') with just a symlink to the
> program interpreter in it to conform with the standards - at least until
> the standards have been adapted to multiarch.
I was thinking just the same. I've played before with the
removed symlink from /lib64 to lib and made a symlink for
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2. It worked but I think some things
Anyway there are some package that fail to build as is on pure64
because of lib64 dirs. They install things in a lib64 dir and
then when trying to package it then search for it in the lib dir.
This includes atleast glibc and gcc, and I think xfree86 too.
> P.S.: How is the 'pure64' upload to alioth working? I did not get any
> response to my application for membership in the debian-amd64 group.
It currently has 774/5192 (source) packages on it. It also
contains some packages that are arch all but those shouldn't be
there. The auto builder says: "14.91% up-to-date".
You should be able to do a cdebootstrap from it.
The only reason there isn't more on it atm is because I'm limited
in my upload speed.