Well, that doesn't say why using different library naming scheme is bad. I think /lib64 is going to cause headaches someday in the future. Like, if im running a dual 32/64 system, /lib64 makes sense, but if i'm not, then I would want everything in /lib... but the package can only put stuff in one place or the other. =/ So, we're stuck with /lib64, which I think is ugly, Until the End Of Time. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 12:59, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Jerry Haltom <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > What about it? > > > > /usr/lib/package/libsomething.1.2.3_amd64.so. > > Actually: > > mrvn@opteron:~$ file /usr/lib64/gconv/libISOIR165.so /usr/lib/gconv/libISOIR165.so > /usr/lib64/gconv/libISOIR165.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped > /usr/lib/gconv/libISOIR165.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), stripped > > > > > On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 10:48, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:35, Jerry Haltom wrote: > > > > > > > > There's gotta be some reason I'm missing why this is a worse idea than > > > > /lib64. > > > > > > What about /usr/lib/package/ ? > > > > > MfG > Goswin -- Jerry Haltom <email@example.com> Feedback Plus, Inc.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part