Re: multiarch status update

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>]

"Adam Borowski" <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote in message 
[🔎] 20060512001508.GA23312@angband.pl">news:[🔎] 20060512001508.GA23312@angband.pl...
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:49:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> > On the other hand, if we continue that thought process we could end up
> > with all headers and libraries in /usr/share/, which is absurd.
>
> Why?  This is exactly what's beautiful, especially if EVERYTHING ends up 
> in
> /usr/share/ at one day, at which point /share/ will be redundant and the 
> FHS
> will change.

That will be hard, a /usr/share to /usr symlink would likely end up part of 
that transition,
and poorly written software could ave some trouble with that.

> > Hm... This entire concept seems messy. It seems that processors that
> > support multiple architectures, as well as cross compilition are begining
> > to blur the line between /usr and /usr/share.
>
> It's not "messy", it's plain awesome.  And if the line gets blurred into
> oblivion, it will be a reason for joy.
Indeed. I was speeking about the transition being messy, not the final 
result.
I take it that you are interested in a multi-arch solution for binaries, 
which the "upstream"
proposal currently does not cover.

Overall the idea seems good.