Re: PROPOSED: 32/64 bit coexistance

[mikem@cyber.com.au]

Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> 
> Previously Oliver Paukstadt wrote:
> > I don't know if there are RPM or RedHat people on the list, because there
> > are no redhat people among the explict named recipients. We should talk to
> > the rpm people because I think if the package manager could solve our
> > problem, we should solve the problem in a clean way and not have /lib
> > pointing to /lib32 or /lib64 depending on an existant compatibility
> > architecture or not. Great standard. ;-/
> 
> Horrible standard. And rpm is not the only way to distribute,

However, it is the Linux Standard Base recommended way of distributing
software. Whether .deb or tgz is `just as often used' is *highly*
statistically debatable (e.g., by looking at Netcraft surveys and other
statistical studies).

Seeing how much of the packaging system debate is not actually based
around packaging systems, but higher level considerations and tools
(e.g., APT, up2date, and other tools which aren't packaging systems but
rather live on top of them), or policies, Linux standards should be
build upon this previously debated and set packaging standard, and try
to accommodate deviations as best as it can.

However, that's off topic - the FHS spans multiple Unix-like systems,
and non Linux systems have different standards for packaging software.

Mike


-- 
------------------------------------------
Mike MacCana    	Support Consultant  
          C Y B E R S O U R C E
   Level 9, 140 Queen St Melbourne 3000
Ph : +61 3 9642 5997 Fax: +61 3 9642 5998