Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?
On 04-May-08 16:29, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Is there any reason why would we want to have a "lib64" dir on
> The way I see it, the only reason for lib64 is biarch. I think
> it would make things easier for both pure64 and multiarch if we
> didn't have that lib64 dir.
> What do you people think about fixing all sources to get rid of
> the lib64 dirs for amd64?
I think this is a good idea. The implementation of the multiarch
proposal will make lib64 obsolete anyway. Maybe '/lib64' has its place
in a native 32bit system with 64bit alternative libraries as an
addition. For a native 64bit system with possibly some 32bit libraries
for legacy applications it would not make sense to install the native
libraries in '/lib64' and the legacy libraries in '/lib'.
The only reason why we need 'lib64' in the 'pure64' port at the moment
seems to be that the program interpreter is hard coded as
'/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' in binaries linked with libc6,
i.e. we have
# ldd /bin/ls
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 [...]
This could easily be changed to '/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' or
something else. However, as I understand it, the current
FHS/LSB standards require the 64bit program interpreter to be in
'/lib64'. But this will certainly change once the FHS and LSB
implement the multiarch proposal. Maybe we should make a real
'/lib64' directory (not a symlink to '/lib') with just a symlink to the
program interpreter in it to conform with the standards - at least until
the standards have been adapted to multiarch.
P.S.: How is the 'pure64' upload to alioth working? I did not get any
response to my application for membership in the debian-amd64 group.