Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?
On 04-May-10 16:01, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 12:39:35PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andreas Jochens (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > > This could easily be changed to '/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' or
> > > something else. However, as I understand it, the current
> > Erm, AIUI you'd have to recompile everything if you change the location
> > of the interpreter.
> Not to mention breaking binary compatibility with everyone else.
On SUSE (which has separate /lib64 and /lib directories) you would just
have to provide a _single_ symlink
/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
to run binaries having '/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' as the
interpreter name. I would not call that 'breaking binary
I think it is a bad idea to hard code 'lib64' in almost every binary
on our system if there is a general consensus that 'lib64' is ugly
and everybody wants to get rid of it sooner or later.
After reading the FHS again, I do not think that it requires
the name '/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' to be hard coded in every binary.
It just says that 64bit libraries on amd64 should be in /lib64 and it
also seems to allow /lib64 to be a symlink /lib. So the 'pure64'
approach does not seem to violate the FHS after all
because it provides the 64bit libraries in /lib64 through the symlink.
As long as we will not attempt to simultaneously install a 64bit and a
32bit version of the same library, the 'pure64' approach fulfils
the requirements of the FHS AFAICS.
However, maybe I am missing something.