Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec? > > On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for > programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs that > don't. > >> 32bit mozilla with flash plugin and 64bit mozilla without. A lot of >> people seem to want that. > > Bill's idea seems to work in that case. Although as you would need different > names in /usr/bin it might make sense to just name the libexec files with the > same extension as the file in /usr/bin that launches them.
What about mips O32, N32, N64 abis? /lib, /lib32 and /lib64? What about i386 knetbsd and linux? The multiarch /arch-os/ path is already present in the toolchain for many things including include files and libs and works for all cases of multiarch in a clean way. The lib{,32,64} subdirs are different on every arch, confusing and insuffient for the bsd case. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]