> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Details would be: which parts of LSB is the port not compliant with?
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:20:19PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > It doesn't have the i386 loader in the right place, it doesn't have > 32bit libraries in /lib. Actually, the i386 loader bit might not be > right anymore w/ ia32-lib... Even so though, there's only a few 32bit > libraries installed. The other thing is that /lib64 is a symlink and > not it's own directory into which 64bit libraries are placed.. It's not > immediately clear to me if this is really a violation of the LSB or not > though. This isn't official or anything, but I think that /lib and /lib64 being symlinks are perfectly adequate. As long as they're not symlinks to the same place. > > Why do the packages require changes to become compliant? Why is the > > They would have to be modified to install packages into /lib64 for amd64 > instead of into /lib like every other arch. This only matters for packages which provide libraries. You're talking a few dozens of packages which might need a fairly trivial patch. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
