On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 21:23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Just think of all the scripts that use /bin/bash, /bin/sh, .... All > those would break with /bin64/bash, /bin64/sh, .... I don't think > anyone will go for a bin / bin64 split. > Then I don't understand how you're going to deal with this: binpkg depends on libpkg. Part of the exported API of the library in libpkg is a structure, the binary-image of this structure changes depending whether you are using the i386 or amd64 version of this library. Under your proposals, we supply both a libpkg:i386 and libpkg:amd64. What do we do about binpkg? Only one of the following two options spring to mind: 1) Provide both binpkg:i386 and binpkg:amd64, each depending on the library with the correct ABI. Except unless you use bin64, these will not be dual-installable meaning that only one of the libraries will ever need to be installed at the same time as well. 2) Provide only an amd64 (or i386) version of binpkg. But this makes the dual-ABI libraries redundant, we only need whichever is matched to the binary. Once you take into account the various inter-library dependencies where this is an issue, you'll find you pretty well almost need an all-i386 bin or all-amd64 bin anyway. > > > > /etc/* -> /etc64/* > > > > (config files may be architecture specific) > > > > > libc6 springs immediately to mind, now you mention it. Others (just on > > my system from a quick grep) include libnss-db, libpam-modules, libao2 > > and libruby1.8. > > Where is the problem with those packages? Whats architecture dependent > on their config files? > Are you planning on submitting your change to the FHS that configuration files are now required to be architecture independent? Because that's certainly exactly the opposite of what the FHS says. Scott  this isn't an uncommon problem, some of the core fundamental types such as those for measuring times, file sizes and the like have different sizes on 32-bit and 64-bit systems. -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part