Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * 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.
No. You obviously never tried or read the mails about it. If you don't
have lib64 -> lib linked you get lots and lots of random breakages and
misbuilds. In effect you have to touch and fix all 2000+ library
packages. There is no such thing as just "fix the base libs".
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
