Re: amd64 and dpkg and so
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 29 August 2003 23:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean?
>
> There are packages that rely on libraries being in /usr/lib.
> They obviously need to be changed to find them in /usr/lib64
> when running on a biarch 32/64 bit system. E.g. KDE has been
> changed to default to a $prefix/lib64 path when running on
> amd64, which is the correct thing to do (according to LSB).
>
> It would be just wrong to patch upstream packages into
> non-standard behavior in order to get a short-term solution.
>
> One more important problem is that that attempt would
> prevent us from getting a clean upgrade path to the
> correct solution. Right now we have a (potential) way of
> upgrading i386 to amd64, once we start getting incompatible
> with the rest of the world that won't work anymore.
Ok, that's what I thought it meant.
Then why not do a pure 64-bit release that uses /usr/lib64?
Or is adding that "64" part of the issue regarding the need to
upgrade dpkg?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
4 degrees from Vladimir Putin
Reply to: