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