[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ideas about the lib / lib64 names, subarchs, porting guidelines [Re: irc brainstorming notes]

* Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [031209 16:55]:
> > I am not sure if I agree with you there.  It seems like you are taking
> > the flexibility a bit too far.
> > 
> > I can see why we need to have /lib and /lib64, but I don't see the need
> > of having i386 and i686 libraries installed concurrently.  If your
> > application requires a 32bit version of a library it should not care if
> > it's i386 or i686.  Things will still run if you have one or the other
> > -- unlike the case of i386 vs amd64.
> > 
> > I could be missing something however.
> Its just the way it currently works. openssl puts a i386 lib into
> /usr/lib and an optimised lib into /lib/i686/cmov. The ld will pick
> the faster one if the cpu supports i686/cmov features.

Oh, ok.  Then I will not worry about it since it sounds like there is no
extra support to be added.

It will be likely that instead of installing libssl-i686-version_i386
ppl will start o building libssl-version_i686... that is once there is
support for it.  Then this whole /lib/i686 could go away, no?

> > I was hoping to not have ot change the output too much.  Ie, leave -u in
> > the format that it's in now, and add a new format w/ the arch info.  You
> > are probably right, grouping by arch would be better.
> -uu or -u -u for more "u"? -U? something.

sure -u -u works.

> > Again, I am not sure if that is not too much.  I belive that libssl/i386
> > and libssl/i686 are mutually exclusive since they provide the same ABI.
> I don't realy care about i686 optimised libs going to lib/i686. Its
> just the way its currently done so libfoo.deb can contain both i386
> and i686 libs.
> For all I care the bloated i386 deb can remain. I someone cares he
> could split it up and having libfoo and libfoo-common (instead of
> lib64foo depending on libfoo for common files) would make that easy.

Right.  I missed that.  Carry on... nothing to see here.


				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

Attachment: pgp5GyP0742Vu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: