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

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

* David Wood (obsidian@panix.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> >>Would they not work properly with the symlink in place?
> >
> >is /usr/lib/i386-linux a symlink back to /usr/lib or what?  /usr/lib
> As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to 
> /usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around.

I'd like to see that symlink. :)

> I am not saying that one starts multiarch and immediately pretends its 
> finished. Only that one can start, without breaking anything... so why not 
> start?

This is true and I think we do need to start on it soon.  I'm not sure
about not breaking *anything*, but what does get broken needs to get
fixed anyway.

> Why not make /usr/lib/i386-linux and make the links? New packages would 
> eventually follow the new standard directly; old ones would be gradually 
> ported over. The whole time, you are still pure64, or ia32. At some point, 
> when dpkg/apt and the other infrastructure work is finished, and a usable 
> subset of packages is compliant, then you can switch to "being" multiarch. 
> In the meantime, you manage everything just as you do now.

It'd probably be better to get multiarch support in the base packages
first, but, eh.

> Right. But that's why you make the links, and then start on the work.
> Later, when the work is complete, we can support multiple architectures, 
> and until then, we have lost nothing - everything works as it does now.

Eh, I'd rather try to do without the symlinks to start and then see what
breaks. :)



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: