Re: AMD64 for sarge [Re: <rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]

[Andreas Metzler <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at>]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 10:35:34AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:48:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
[...] 
> > 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 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?

Hello,
Does it make a difference? I am not familiar with this stuff but from
an outsider's POV I really cannot see a difference besides a optical
one for a _non_ _biarch_ port whether the files live in /lib and
/lib64 is a symlink to it or the stuff living in lib64.
                    cu andreas