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

Re: AMD64 Status Update -- And Future Directions

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:46:59PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That makes lots of sense to me.  There is little to multiarch that is
> > AMD64-specific.
> Well, the big difference is that all of the other 'multiarch'able ports
> have started with the 'preferred' ABI, and so all of the libraries live in
> /lib, etc.  On AMD64, people want to start with the 'non-preferred' ABI
> (this is just using the terminology of the Linux Filesystem Standard)
> which means that an AMD64 port has more trouble separating itself from
> multiarch.
> [Just to be concrete: the 'mips' port of Debian compiles everything to the
> 32-bit mips ABI, even on machines which support the 64-bit ISA.  So all
> the MIPS libraries live in /lib, and the filesystem standard is happy.]
> This is not to say that separating the projects doesn't make sense.  Just
> that the amd64 port will likely remain more tightly tied to the
> decisions of the multiarch project than the others.
>  --scott

IMHO the FHS/LSB is braindamaged in this respect. They consider i386 to
be the preferred arch for amd64, but consider ia64 to be the preferred
arch on ia64, even though both can run i386. From John's post it appears
alpha could even run i386 at one time. Either they should define all 64bit
stuff go into /lib64 or else deprecate /lib altogether and use something
like /lib32 and /lib64 or /lib/$arch/... Personally I think the
/lib/$arch stuff would be more interesting if feasible since you could
have different subarch optimized libraries as well.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: