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[0].
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
[0] 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?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part