* David Wood (obsidian@panix.com) wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > >>Would they not work properly with the symlink in place? > > > >is /usr/lib/i386-linux a symlink back to /usr/lib or what? /usr/lib > > As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to > /usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around. I'd like to see that symlink. :) > I am not saying that one starts multiarch and immediately pretends its > finished. Only that one can start, without breaking anything... so why not > start? This is true and I think we do need to start on it soon. I'm not sure about not breaking *anything*, but what does get broken needs to get fixed anyway. > Why not make /usr/lib/i386-linux and make the links? New packages would > eventually follow the new standard directly; old ones would be gradually > ported over. The whole time, you are still pure64, or ia32. At some point, > when dpkg/apt and the other infrastructure work is finished, and a usable > subset of packages is compliant, then you can switch to "being" multiarch. > In the meantime, you manage everything just as you do now. It'd probably be better to get multiarch support in the base packages first, but, eh. > Right. But that's why you make the links, and then start on the work. > > Later, when the work is complete, we can support multiple architectures, > and until then, we have lost nothing - everything works as it does now. Eh, I'd rather try to do without the symlinks to start and then see what breaks. :) Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature