Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?
Stephen Frost <email@example.com> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
>> > Is there any reason why would we want to have a "lib64" dir on
>> > amd64?
>> Its the standard dir for any 64bit library on amd64. (As set in the
>> FSH, multiarch proposals and the major linux distributions [Debian,
>> SuSe and RH]).
> Erm, the latest multiarch proposal for Debian doesn't use lib64,
> thankfully. It's a broken idea to begin with, really.
>> > What do you people think about fixing all sources to get rid of
>> > the lib64 dirs for amd64?
>> Its a very bad idea since we would loose compatibilty with other linux
>> distributions and with upstream sources.
>> We had this discussion in the past and we pretty much all agreed that
>> /lib64 is ugly. But there is nothing we can do about it short of
>> getting the FSH and everyone else changed. Its a bit late in the game
>> to change it.
> That doesn't mean we have to really use it. In fact, we're not
> intending to, we'll put a symlink in there for compatibility with FHS
> and company since that's the path for the linker. That's it though.
For me it doesn't realy matter if its a real dir or a symlink. Both
work and both will equaly poison the namespace.
A real soultion must involve getting rid of it completly, everything
else is just a workaround. And that means changing RH and Suse and the
FSH and a bunch of upstream sources that already changed to FSHs