Bryan Kadzban wrote: > ABI issues. Or at least, last time I remember seeing this idea on some > list or other (perhaps it was CLFS? perhaps DIY? can't remember for > sure), this was the reason for keeping /lib64 and /lib. > > The dynamic linker *must* be /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for a 64-bit > executable, and *must* be /lib/ld-linux.so.2 for a 32-bit executable. > Otherwise binaries that weren't built on the system won't run. Symlinks > might let you work around this, but ... eeewww. Just set --libdir for > autoconf, or LIBDIR for other Makefiles.
Well, that's a pretty good reason. I should have known that there would be one. But, Argh!, it just seems such a backwards way to (unofficially?) standardize. It feels that, logically, /lib should house the _default_ libraries. > (I have a fairly large collection of build64 scripts that hold what I've > done for various packages to get their libs into the right directory. > This is for LFS, chunks of BLFS, and several beyond-BLFS packages. The > *vast* majority needed nothing more than --libdir. If/when multilib > starts being worked on, I'd have no problem going through those and > seeing what packages in LFS needed what arguments. In fact, I might do > this anyway; now I'm curious...) Yeah, I've been starting to build a multilib system based on current LFS dev and these are just the sorts of issues that are cropping up. I'd be interested in seeing your results. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
