Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG (tb@becket.net) wrote:
> > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn't have
> 32bit libraries in /lib. Actually, the i386 loader bit might not be
> right anymore w/ ia32-lib... Even so though, there's only a few 32bit
> libraries installed. The other thing is that /lib64 is a symlink and
> not it's own directory into which 64bit libraries are placed.. It's not
> immediately clear to me if this is really a violation of the LSB or not
> though.
This isn't official or anything, but I think that /lib and /lib64 being
symlinks are perfectly adequate. As long as they're not symlinks to
the same place.
> > Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the
>
> They would have to be modified to install packages into /lib64 for amd64
> instead of into /lib like every other arch.
This only matters for packages which provide libraries. You're talking
a few dozens of packages which might need a fairly trivial patch.
--
Raul
Reply to: