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