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

Re: URGENT [PROPOSAL] V3: lsb lib and lsb loader location (also IA64)

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: pgpd2AF5nP9L1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: