Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Seriously, I don't believe in multiboot. If I can't build a >>> 64-bit version of a package, then I don't need it. I should be >>> able to put libraries in the directories I want. >> Well, you are, of course, but this appears to be nothing more than >> fallout from violating the assumptions of all the various other >> packages -- in this case, that a 64-bit-mode link requires the .la >> files from /usr/lib64. > > Then, as you have said, it should look there first.
Well, it does look there first; that's what's causing the warning
message. You installed the libraries to /usr/lib (since the default
--libdir is ${prefix}/lib), but libtool found them in /usr/lib64. :-)
>>> It would be easier to edit /usr/bin/libtool to just not output
>>> the warning. It's even easier to delete the .la files.
>> Maybe, but fixing the default source path feels more right to me.
>> Shrug, either way. :-)
>
> Yes, but I think multilib is a hack anyway. It's only purpose is to
> run binaries that have not been compiled as 64-bit. Rebuilding all
> binaries as 64-bit feels even more right to me.
For Linux-native programs where source is available, yes, absolutely,
agreed.
Unfortunately that's not all I use. For wine, used to run 32-bit
windows games, or any of the Linux-native binary-only games I've bought
over the years (Descent 3, four things built off two versions of the
Unreal engine (3 versions of Unreal, plus Rune), Doom 3, RtCW, and a
couple of others that I don't recall offhand), not so much. :-)
But it's all going to depend on what you're doing with the system of
course.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
