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

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

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:40:17PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
> But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you are 
> no longer following the proposal.
> As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to 
> /usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around.

If /usr/lib/i386-linux exists, then /usr/lib is a directory.  hence
/usr/lib can't be a symlink.  The files in /usr/lib can symlink to
/usr/lib/i386-linux if you want, but /usrlib itself can't be anything
but a directory.

> But they won't. I must have expressed myself quite badly to have been 
> misunderstood on this so much.
> 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?
> 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.
> Right. But that's why you make the links, and then start on the work.

Well I think what multiarch needs is for someone to go try it and figure
out all the kinks that have to be solved.  Ofcourse not everyone will
necesarily even want multiarch.

> Later, when the work is complete, we can support multiple architectures, 
> and until then, we have lost nothing - everything works as it does now.

You will at least loose a bunch of inodes, but I think we could survive

Len Sorensen

Reply to: