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

Re: [x86-64] Re: AMD64 and lib64



On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:52:11AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> All this talk about 'lib64' and 'history' and 'a mistake to begin with'
> completely ignores the many successful 32/64 bit architectures which have
> used (and still use) this layout: sparc, mips, ppc, etc, etc.  I agree
> that multi-arch is a nice thing, but don't be too quick to dismiss what
> every other distribution and every other architecture is doing.  Pointless
> put-downs don't actually accomplish anything.
>  --scott

Something that you also fail to mention that I don't see mentioned yet
in this thread is this.

The preferred bits 32/64, at least in FHS, is called "lib" the other is
called "lib32/lib64". So on most archs 64bit is called "lib64". On ia64
however 64bit called "lib" since its preferred in 64bit form. But for
amd64 64bit is called "lib64" only for backwards compatibility with
ia32 since its preferred in 64bit as well.

If you notice "lib64" archs aren't for the most part supported in
Debian or for that matter in other dists either. It is non-trivial to
support an arch that installs into "lib64" meaning pretty much every
library package in Debian would have to be modified to cope with
installing into either lib/lib64. Instead multiarch was seen as a better
solution to implement since it deals with other cases such as mips
having three subarchs, etc.

Chris

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: