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.
Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature