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

Re: -rpath and policy?

* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:13:46AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> > > > Whatever was previously in the location of the symlink.
> > > 
> > > Which one? The 32bit one or the 64bit one? Notice how they both are
> > > exactly the same location and name.
> > 
> > ... on different architectures, thus in different .debs. I see no
> > problem here.
> The 32bit and 64bit versions of the library can be installed at the same
> time.

Alright, after discussing the issues w/ Colin on IRC we came to
an agreement about what the 'right' approach would probably be:

Add to the ldconfig package a 'lib-symlinks' tool that would take an
argument which specified what you want to be backwards-compatible to.
This tool would then go through and create/recreate all of the symlinks
in the base directories to point to whichever is selected.  You tell it
'i386' and it creates the symlinks pointing to the 32bit libs.  Ditto
for amd64.

We can then have an 'upgrade' package to help people move from i386 or
amd64/pure64 to amd64/multiarch (as an example, certainly other archs
such as sparc to sparc/multiarch would be supported too).  This package
could then either assume the user expects compability to the
architecture they're coming from, or prompt the user as to which they'd
prefer.  The user could then change this later too, if so desired.

Thoughts?  I'm going to see about getting someone to add a link to this
thread from whatever multiarch-migration strategy we've got going.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: