[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Multiarch support (was Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 on amd64)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:58:15PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

> Some update on this, as we have evolved a lot since the last mail.

> Bdale Garbee a écrit :
> >On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 07:10 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 won't make the amd64 port 
> >>compliant with the FHS, which is almost impossible given the current 
> >>setup, ie 64-bit libraries in /lib. However, it would make it compliant 
> >>with the part of the FHS which says that alternative libraries have to 
> >>be in (/usr)/lib<qual>. And it would make us compatible with other 
> >>distributions like Gentoo or Ubuntu that have choosen to use (/usr)/lib32.
> >
> >
> >What sort of value should we assign to achieving that level of
> >"compatibility" with other distributions before multiarch, where I
> >expect us to be in the lead and others to be trying to figure out if/how
> >to be compatible with Debian?
> >
> >Part of the reason I'm unhappy about the current FHS situation is that
> ><qual> seems generally to get defined as "32" or "64" and the definition
> >of what belongs in the unqualified version of the directories feels
> >inconsistent across architectures.  Part of what I like about our
> >multiarch strategy is generalizing this to handle more "interesting"
> >cases like emulated execution environments, etc.  The world just isn't
> >as simple as 32 vs 64 implies...

> >I'm inclined to make as few "structural changes" to ia32-libs as
> >possible pending multiarch implementation.  The reason is that anything
> >we change is going to make work for people, including work we can't
> >anticipate or judge the scale of, like users who have laboriously worked
> >to manually install additional libraries on their systems.  If we're
> >going to put people through a transition process, I'd prefer it be the
> >transition to multiarch!

> You have been heard! The glibc currently in incoming has a preliminary
> multiarch support. It currently looks to librairies in both (/usr)/lib
> and (/usr)/lib/$(host-triplet)/. It support additional libraries (like
> the current one in multilib), via ldconfig, with /lib/ldconfig/ being
> the configuration directory.

> Using this it will be possible to add a link from (/usr)/lib64 to the
> multiarch directories to be compliant with the FHS. And that let time to
> discuss if we want a (/usr)/lib32 or not on amd64 :).

> Currently those directories are supported on all architectures, but only
> amd64 has files in them, a libc6 for i386. It will be used as a test
> architecture before doing the same on other 32/64 bit architectures, as
> there are very few packages to changes.

I'm concerned that putting files in /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu/ may be
premature.  Has thought been given to what this means for the upgrade path
when (...if) dpkg is extended to support installing Arch: i386 multiarch
debs directly on amd64?  I suppose it should just be a Replaces:, but it
still seems like it will be an extra unnecessary transition.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: