Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?
Andreas Jochens wrote:
On 04-May-08 12:23, Alex Perry wrote:
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,
I think that according to the current multiarch proposals the
correct multiarch library paths would be /lib/x86_64-linux and
/lib/i386-linux.
We could make /lib64 a symlink to /lib/x86_64-linux, but what about
/lib/i386-linux? A kind of circular symlink from /lib to /lib/i386-linux?
The same would apply for the /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib paths.
I agree. As far as the softlink is concerned, I was proposing ...
ln -s /lib /lib/i386-linux
ln -s /lib64 /lib/x86_64-linux
and the pure64 people also do
ln -s /lib64 /lib
That would let everything work, and we can ask dpkg which
packages have files installed in locations that don't map thru
the softlinks and therefore need some attention wrt multiarch.
Maybe the current multiarch proposals should be changed to use the
following paths:
/x86_64-linux/lib
/x86_64-linux/usr/lib
/i386-linux/li
I have to admit I'd prefer that for several different reasons.
However, I wasn't trying to open the multiarch can of worms;
I mostly was proposing we make our filesystem be compliant
with their architecture (and use symlinks for the transition).
If the mainstream pure32 people just have to add a couple of
symlinks to be multiarch compatible (but not compliant),
like we did for the /usr/share/doc transition a while back,
they'll be able to share packages with the biarch people.
It'll also allow everybody to play together in the unstable.
Meanwhile, the biarch and pure64 people will be giving the
multiarch proposal a hard test and we'll find the problems.
Reply to: