Hi, On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:24:53PM +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On the other hand, I know that you disagree with some of my decisions > for the gcc-3.4 archive, especially the decision to change the location > of the linker to '/lib' instead of '/lib64'. I think that '/lib64' will > be abandoned in the long run and therefore I do not like the idea to > introduce it in the first place. Call this broken if you like. This is not broken, this simply violates the LSB[1] and makes the port incompatible to other distros. I don't like having /lib64 around neither, and I wish amd64 had the linker treated the same as on alpha or ia64, since 32bit stuff will be legacy in a medium term and the need for 32bit support will fade in time. I fully agree with you in this point. But changing it without a consensuns among at least the porters on this mailing list is wrong, IMHO. We had this topic several times on irc, and we always agreed to not break the LSB but keep waiting for the issue to be solved on a large scale, including other distros and to culminate in a change of the LSB dropping the lib64 requirement. I bet searching the list will show similar discussions here. The pure64 and gcc-3.4 branches should not compete, we work towards the same goal of having amd64 included into debian. We must cooperate closely with the maintainers of the packages having trouble working on amd64, and all the patches you, and the other porters filed proof we are doing so. We should keep on going with this, and do major changes only in consensus with all involved developers and porters. Kind regards Frederik Schueler [1]http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.1/LSB-AMD64/LSB-AMD64/baselib.html#PROGINTERP -- ENOSIG
Attachment:
pgp9CDRON3Fnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature