Re: Moving 32-bit libraries to (/usr)/lib32 on amd64
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!
So, can we achieve any useful cross-distro compatibility results with
clueful application of an additional symlink or three?
Bdale
Reply to: