Re: 64-bit packaging details
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 31 May 2003 10:54, Peter wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
> >
> > AFAIK, Red Hat Linux uses '/usr/lib/gcc-lib/x86_64-linux/3.3{,/32}',
> > which makes sense: .../gcc-lib/... has its own subdirs for different
> > ABIs (i.e. not only limited to 32 and 64 bit), so it should not be below
> > the path for a specific ABI but below the most generic path. The same is
> > true for e.g. /usr/lib/X11/... and /usr/lib/perl/... .
> >
> > Note that gcc uses a different logic for finding its own libraries
> > (libstdc++, libgcc, ...) vs. finding system libraries on biarch systems.
>
> Does that mean there is not going to be a /usr/X11R6/lib64, or a
> /usr/lib64 directory? Or, for example, where is is Python going to
> put its libraries under lib-dynload, or lib64-dynload?
Sorry, I was confused about the X11R6 bit, which is /usr/lib/X11/lib64
on some other distributions. The FHS path is /usr/X11R6/lib64, with
a symlink from /usr/lib64/X11.
> Do I understand it right, that the lib64-directories are only needed
> for a 32/64 bit mixed system, and if Python, for example, is ported to
> amd64, then there probably is only going to be this Python, and thus
> no need for a lib64-dynload?
The lib-dynload is specific to one interpreter and you can not easily
install both the 32 and 64 bit package of python-2.2, so there is
no need to call the directory lib64-dynload. It can be done for symmetry
reasons, but this question can be left to the python maintainer.
> More general, if we have an amd64 only system then even the /lib64
> directory is obsolete?
No, because the path has to be known at some place, e.g. every
dynamic binary contains a reference to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.
The package behavior should not depend on the presence of 32 bit
libraries in {,/usr}/lib, so the {,/usr}/lib64 paths will never be obsolete.
Arnd <><
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+2G3A5t5GS2LDRf4RAi8EAJ9tr7HoEQl4I20ENxTreX5qEPpc2QCfTM/A
/ctFfRA8FysNaQo1HFgWyEY=
=VV94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: