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

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 (aj@andaco.de) 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 
compatibility' seriously.

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.

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: