Re: Linux Core Consortium
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 23:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ian Murdock <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Can someone provide an example of where the name of a dynamic
> > library itself (i.e., the one in the file system, after the
> > package is unpacked) would change? I'd be surprised if this was
> > a big issue. The LSB/FHS should take care of file system level
> > incompatibilities already (though Debian may put some things in
> > /lib that RPM-based distros put in /usr/lib due to more strict policy
> > about such things), so I'd think the main issue wouldn't so much be
> > about the names of the dynamic libraries themselves, but the names of
> > the packages they come in (acl vs. libacl1, as per my last message).
> When multiarch hits all (core) libs will move around
> /lib/* -> /lib/`gcc -dumpmachine`/
> /usr/lib/* -> /usr/lib/`gcc -dumpmachine`/
> /usr/X11R6/lib/* -> /usr/X11R6/lib/`gcc -dumpmachine`/
> If you aim at having the same path to libs (which only broken rpath
> needs) then this will be your nightmare.
> PS: The above lib dirs are the best and only practical solution we
> have for multiarch.
I understand the LSB is beginning to think about the multiarch issue,
and I suspect Debian is far ahead of others in terms of practical
experience with this problem; so, it's not only reasonable to expect
the LSB will help resolve this potential nightmare,
but also that Debian could be at the forefront of helping resolve it.
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in
the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was
vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may
act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible." -T.E. Lawrence