On 03/14/2011 08:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've read about 15 messages on this topic and will try to incorporate
> the relevant areas in my response.
Thanks.
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:39:04PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>>> Okay, so I was just thinking...
>>> help us! I
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:50:28 -0500
DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 03/14/2011 08:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > The only reason
> > for lib64 to exist is for those proprietary packages that have not been
> > updated for 64-bit operation.
> Did you mean /lib containing 32bit libs? /lib64 we don't really have a
Andrew Benton wrote:
>
>What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib
>=> /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and
>no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly
>hack. I'd much rather (for aesthetic reasons) do away with
>{/usr,}/lib64 if
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:35 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>
> >
> >What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib
> >=> /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and
> >no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly
> >hack. I'd mu
