Bug#277852: gcc-3.4: Please replace 'lib64' with 'lib' in gcc/config/i386/linux64.h on amd64
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:02:37AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 04-Oct-24 18:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > > The '/lib64' directory is just ugly and I want to get rid of that
> > > or at least minimize its use (and I think I am not alone here).
> >
> > You're certainly not alone among the Debian amd64 team. I think you,
> > as a group, are alone in the larger world. I find /lib64 a fairly
> > elegant solution.
>
> The '/lib64' was created with a 32bit system in mind which had to be
> supplemented by a few 64bit libraries, while the existing 32bit
> libraries would stay at '/lib'. The current amd64 port is different.
Remember, this is not an invention of amd64. See: ia64, sparc64,
s390x, mips64. All of which have very different scenarios for when a
particular library format is preferred. All of which are older than
amd64.
> > There is a community list on which x86_64 ABI issues can be discussed.
> > None of the Debian porters have ever come to talk about their
> > objections to the layout there. If you seriously intend to change the
> > ABI, then someone ought to have done that by now.
>
> There have been many discussions on this subject. I prefer to show a
> working solution before presenting a proposal to change an existing
> standard or to establish a new standard. Standards should be taken from
> working and proven solutions not vice versa.
Yes, but radical departures from standards should be _talked about_.
By people from more than one implementor of the standard; that's what
makes them standards.
> BTW, the ABI document you cited is still a 'Draft Standard' AFAIK
> and this may have a reason. Moreover, the sentence
> 'However, Linux puts this in /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2'
> in that document hardly looks like specifying a definite standard,
> especially in view of the preceding sentence which tries to
> establish '/lib/ld64.so.1' as the one and only standard.
>
> I am not at all against a compatibility symlink '/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2'
> to be able to run binaries from other distributions,
> but we should not make every binary in our system depend on that symlink
> when everything is really installed in '/lib' as it is in the current
> amd64 port.
Regardless of how the ABI document is labelled, it is widely deployed.
All the changes I recall from this year have been simply adding
documentation for existing practices.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply to: