Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:40:17PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> >The main objection is to change locations of files in a way that is
> >incompatible with existing software on linux.
> But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you are
> no longer following the proposal.
> >>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.
There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need
to have a symlink. The only case you might need a symlink is
when it's using rpath's (or simular hardcoded paths), and nothing
should be rpath's for something that isn't a private lib. Tools
like lintian even check for this.
All that needs to happen is that the libs get moved to an other
dir. This of course requires that we have the tools to put them
in the right dir and that they can be co-installed. And that
dependencies work properly and things like that. This is being
PS: For those going to debconf, Tollef is going to give a
session about multi-arch, I suggest you visit it.