Circa 2001-Jun-21 21:07:37 -0400 dixit Stuart Anderson: : On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Christopher Yeoh wrote: : > Is there any need to embed the `ia' bit in the name? Why not just : > /lib/lsb32 (or /lib/lsb32compat though I don't think we even need the : > compat suffix). The same directories can then be used for sparc64 and : > ppc64 systems (no need to install both ia32 and ppc32 libraries on the : > same machine). : : I very much like this generalization. I don't. Perhaps there aren't systems yet that can act like more than one 64-bit (or 32-bit) architecture, but that doesn't mean we should be so short-sighted as to expect there never to be. And is 'ia64' different from whatever AMD's 64-bit architecture is called? If they are different, i think it possible, if not likely, that distributions would want to include libraries for both architectures on the same system (and hence call them different things). : Another odd, but not impossible, scenario would be running ia32 apps, on : an Alpha system. How would this scheme handle that situation? Or what about cross-compiling LSB-compliant ia32 apps on an alpha system with the appropriate cross-compiler? Use the architecture name, not just the number of bits. It avoids potential problems down the road. -- jim knoble | jmknoble@jmknoble.cx | http://www.jmknoble.cx/ (GnuPG fingerprint: 31C4:8AAC:F24E:A70C:4000::BBF4:289F:EAA8:1381:1491)
Attachment:
pgpH29yuBvzMD.pgp
Description: PGP signature