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

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

Thomas Steffen <steffen.list.account@gmail.com> writes:

> The initiative has been taken by other distributions, and I don't see
> a viable alternative to follow their approach. That means /usr/lib for
> 32bit libs and /usr/lib64 for the 64bit libs. Yes, it is ugly, but it
> is close to inevitable.

It is already obsoleted by recent drafts of the standards. They go the
multiarch way too.

> I would prefer architecture neutral file positions very much
> (/usr/bin/i386 for binaries, /usr/lib/i386 for libraries etc), but I
> don't see how that can be "compatible" with RedHat/SuSUE.

Moving bin breaks tons of stuff while moving lib is, with the
exception of already broken by design rpath, acomplished by simply
adapting ld.so.conf. That's why /usr/lib/i386-linux/ is so "trivial"
and /usr/bin/i386-linux/ is impossible.

> But maybe we are taking the wrong approach, and a little bit of path
> magic in ld.so/dlopen would solve the problem?

Only for libs and we already do that. For binaries there are tons of
scripts with

#!/bin/sh [or any other interpreter]

All of those would break if you start moving bin around.

> Thomas


Reply to: