Le mer, 07/07/2004 à 10:35 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit : > > In summary: The pure64 amd64 port doesn't support ia32 in the same way > > other vendors do, or all that well in general really. It's not meant > > to. The /lib vs. /lib64 hack is bad and wrong and will be going away > > in favor of multiarch, a much cleaner and more elegant solution. > > The rest of the universe appears to disagree with the Debian AMD64 > porters on this issue, including existing Linux distributions and > commercial Unices. The rest of the universe made a move towards lib64 while already existing setups (namely Debian ia64) didn't use it. > The whole time you've been discussing this I've been wondering how you > can make a value judgement with such limited view. There's a lot of > benefit to doing it the way other people do. Has it actually been > discussed with any other distributors or any standards body? Did the other distributors discuss with us before starting with the lib64 idea? On a more practical note, lib64 being a symlink doesn't affect all programs that don't set a RPATH. Thus we can support quite a large subset of existing ia32 software, without claiming LSB compliance for ia32, which you can easily achieve anyway by installing a i386 distribution (or a chroot). -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=