On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 04:54:51AM +1100, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > Do you have a date for the glibc change?
I was hoping for pretty soon after a thorough discussion. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:12:31PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > /usr/lib32 isn't exactly FHS either, but it's better than > /emul/ia32-linux > > Will this also change for ia64? As far as I know, there that path > is hardcoded in the kernel. Can you be more specific? I'm not aware of this. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 05:36:26PM -0400, Michael S. Gilbert wrote: > Is this necessary? There are already softlinks set up: > /usr/lib32->/emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib and /lib32->/emul/ia32-linux/lib. It's not necessary any more than conforming to standards is necessary. We could just as easily move everytihng to /Library, but that would upset people just as much as /emul does. > If debian is going to go down this road, then I think plain old lib > should also get removed in the process (e.g. put everything into either > lib32 or lib64; temporarily provide a lib softlink until a full > transition happens). This could make a 64 to 128 (or other bitness) > transition and associated backwards-compatibility easier, perhaps... That is a far more disruptive change than what I had intended. On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:16:47PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Could we pretty please use the multiarch paths here if we start moving > stuff around? We're going to need to patch gcc/binutils if we're to > compile stuff against those paths anyway. By multiarch paths, you mean /usr/lib/i386-linux/ in this case? I'm fine with doing that and changing both /usr/lib32 and /emul/ia32-linux to be symlinks thither for the time being. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
