Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> * Raul Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > This isn't official or anything, but I think that /lib and /lib64 being
> > symlinks are perfectly adequate. As long as they're not symlinks to
> > the same place.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:50:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yeah, sorry, not gonna be the way it works. They need to be the same
> place for packages to work w/o modification and to be LSB compliant.
"packages to work w/o modification" sounds an awful lot like
"without porting the packages".
> > > They would have to be modified to install packages into /lib64 for amd64
> > > instead of into /lib like every other arch.
> > This only matters for packages which provide libraries. You're talking
> > a few dozens of packages which might need a fairly trivial patch.
> Uh.. I could 921 binary packages currently *installed* on my system
> that would need to be changed..
I've got 620 on mine, but most of those don't matter.
I mean, yeah, getting them all fixed would be nice, and not fixing them
is ugly, but all that's really important are the libraries listed in LSB.
For the rest, it's probably wise to treat this as a non-release critical
> I've heard counts of at *least* a
> couple hundred source packages from other people (in case my method of
> counting was less than perfect for some reason-
> dpkg -S lib/*.so* usr/lib/*.so*| cut -f1 -d: | sort -u | wc -l ).
> The change isn't always all that trivial either. Though, regardless, it
> would be duplicated work since it would have to be done for multiarch
Not if it's done right.