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

Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?

Andreas Jochens wrote:

'/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.
How does making the actual interpreter a symlink satisfy the standard
where having the directory symlink'd doesn't?

We could also put the interpreter directly in a real '/lib64' directory without any symlinks. This would satisfy the standards. I have tried this and it doesn't seem to make any problems in the 'pure64' context.

What solution to the '/lib64' issue would you prefer?

I think we have basically three options at the moment:

1. Make /lib64 a symlink to /lib (and do not install any 32bit libraries)
This is what 'pure64' does now. (Gentoo does the same, so at least we would not be alone with this approach).

2. Make /lib64 a real directory and put just the interpreter in it. All other libraries go to /lib.

3. Make /lib64 a real directory and put the interpreter in it. Compile some things like gcc and libc6 as multilib/biarch and put the 32bit libraries in /lib and the 64bit libraries in /lib64. All other libraries go to /lib.

4.  Why can't we (as in the biarch and the pure64 teams individually)
simply adopt the proposed multiarch naming convention immediately ?

We'd put softlinks from /lib and /lib64 to the respective multiarch locations,
so that all existing packages for pure64 would install correctly and run.
In the short term, of course, one of the multiarch directories will actually be
a softlink to the other multiarch directory to reproduce our current merge.

Reply to: