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

Re: AMD64 Status Update -- And Future Directions

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 08:48:36PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > Just yesterday on IRC I read a discussion on #debian-devel that accused
> > the rest of the world as being wrong and stupid.  
> Standards --- they're all stupid, but you have to pick *something*.
> > You will break compatibility for something.  Either binaries that look
> > for 32bit libs in /lib (debian-i386) or those that look for 64bit libs
> > in /lib (pure-amd64).  Agreed, pure-amd64 does not follow the, so
> > called, standards.
> which is exactly why you are *extremely* unlikely to find binary-only
> software built for pure64.  So your argument is moot.
> > How about this:
> >  - map all files in .../lib/ to .../lib/${arch}/
> >  - change ld.so to pick the right libs at link time
> You managed to miss my whole point.  There are standards.  The standards
> say that certain things go in /lib.  You can't symlink /lib/i386 to /lib.
> That just doesn't work. 
> You may not like the standard, but that doesn't change it.
>  http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/lsb/spec/archLSB/X86-64/spec.html?rev=HEAD
>  http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/specs.php

But you can get the standard changed if you have a good workable
solution especially if it is arch independent. Debian has
representatives to FHS/LSB afaik.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: