On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:04:56PM -0400, David Wood wrote:I don't understand. As far as I could see the problem you raised was what a (finished) multiarch solves.Multiarch was never finished as far as I know.
I'm just trying to understand what people's objections to multiarch are. I didn't understand what Hugo said in answer to that. I meant that it sounded like his answers (the problems he brought up) were things that multiarch would fix, not problems with multiarch itself.
I keep saying it. There's a symlink. It's backwards-compatible! There is no package building involved to get started! If I have /usr/lib and suddenly it becomes a symlink to /usr/lib/i386-linux/ What's the problem? Yes, it will take work to _finish_, but why haven't we even _started_?Many packages/programs have hardcoded paths in them which will look in /usr/lib and not in your new directory.
Would they not work properly with the symlink in place?And if that failed (is this really possible?), why not use a bind mount? Or a hard link? (Well, maybe you don't like hard links, but without multiarch, bind mounts in chroots are a fact of life anyway.)
Also not at all compatible with existing software on any architecture.
I feel a little crazy here. Is there something really basic I'm missing?What do you mean not compatible? With the linkage of the legacy directory to the new one, where would the incompatibility come from?
A library would work unmodified in the old location, and then over time it can be modified to work in the new one.