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

Re: Get rid of the lib64 dir?

On 04-May-11 11:19, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >My idea was simply that it should be easy to set up symlinks from the 
> >old standard locations like /lib and /usr/lib to the new architecture 
> >specific ones.
> Why?

To be able to find the libraries for default architecture also at the 
standard locations /lib and /usr/lib and not only at the new 
multiarch-specific locations.

> >It should also be possible to simply change those 
> >symlinks to point to a different default architecture, e.g. to change
> >/lib -> /i386-linux/lib to /lib -> /x86_64-linux/lib.
> >
> >Another point is that one should not have more architecture specific 
> >entry points in the file system than necessary. The current multiarch 
> >proposal has
> >
> >/lib/i386-linux
> >/usr/lib/i386-linux
> >/usr/local/i386-linux
> >...
> No, it does not.  It has /lib/$(gcc -dumpmachine) and /usr/$(gcc 
> -dumpmachine)/lib.  /usr/local is the local admin's decision area.

What would you suggest to an admin to do with /usr/local/lib?

> >and maybe even
> >
> >/bin/i386-linux
> >/usr/bin/i386-linux
> >/usr/local/bin/i386-linux
> >...
> >
> >at a later stage.
> No.  What multiarch proposal have you read that even opens up this 
> possibility?



    * Binaries - Can we assume that bin directories don't need to be 
differentiated since users won't want more than one version of a binary 
installed?(for example i386, ppc, ppc64 versions of ls should all do the 
same thing)"

What would you suggest if somebody wants to install multiple 
architecure versions of a binary (when doing development and testing for 
multiarch machines this will make sense) or if someone wants to use 
mixed binaries from different architectures? 

It still seems to be a straight forward approach to me 
to put all files which depend on a specific architecture 
in a single hierarchy. What would be the disadvantage this?

> This would require bigger root partitions

I do not think that root partitions would have to be bigger if it is 
done properly.

> and is not supported by the current toolchain. amd-multiarch-2 is.

True. I guess the linker would have to be made aware of the new library 
locations for the non-default architectures.
The libraries for the default architecture would be accessible through 
the /lib and /usr/lib symlinks.

> You don't say why you want all those symlinks over the place.

I do not want any symlinks if they can be avoided. I just consider it to 
be a good thing to have all architecture-dependend files in a single 
place. The symlinks from the old locations just provide compatibility 
with the current FHS.

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: