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

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:

> 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).

And programs with rpath set have a very very slim change of running at
all since any library update will break them.

MfG
        Goswin