Re: Bug#259302: base-files: Support for amd64. (fwd)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sure. We could only create an extra base-files-pure64 package as
> suplement to base-files and then do with that as we wish.
That would an idea to consider. The only con I see is that deboostrap
would need to be aware of the new package, which would make things a
little bit more complex.
> Santiago: What is your position on this? Do you think adding the three
> links in base files (or the X11 link) unacceptable?
I would not use such a strong word, but yes, I feel including the X11
symlink in base-files would be like making xfree86-common required.
> Having the X11 lib64 link always installed would have the added
> benefit of also working when people install things in
> /usr/X11R6/lib64/ before installing any of the X libs. Like installing
> oracle and only later remebering it has some X gui. Without the link
> preinstalled dpkg would fail to convert the directory into a link.
I think we should better not worry too much about non-free software.
> [...]
> Maybe someone can asked the X maintainers on irc or on the ML if they
> would mind the link.
I've asked Branden whether he would be willing to include the symlink
in xfree86-common.
If he does not like the idea I would suggest that you try putting the
symlinks in libc6, the package which contains the dynamic linker which
makes the symlinks necessary, after all. This would have the benefit
that if you ever plan to remove the symlinks and switch to a /lib and
/lib64 which are both real directories and different, the libc6
package would probably be in a better position to fiddle with these
symlinks without creating a real mess.
Reply to: