On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:50:23PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > 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. But moving the 32-bit libs to /usr/lib32 does not make us standards-conformant on amd64, because the FHS (yuckily) standardized on storing the *32-bit* libs in /usr/lib on this architecture, with 64-bit libs in /usr/lib64. We'll only ever conform to this part of the standard if a) someone fixes the standard, or b) someone goes to the herculean (and insane) effort of moving all the libs around on amd64. > 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. I think we're probably better off reserving /usr/lib/i386-linux for future use for the time being, but will defer to Tollef if he thinks this is reasonable to start using here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
