On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:01 AM, devzero2000 wrote: > > >> But I otherwise agree that popt.pc is more useful if -L is contained >> within. >> > > This is the link https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529921 > > > Thanks for the link. > > The RHEL model for multilib is basically summarized as > > Libraries on separate paths, executables with identical behavior. > > Libraries on sperata paths is /lib <-> /lib64 and is mostly obvious. > > Executables (like ls(1)) with identical behavior is also pretty obvious. > Both the 32/64 bit ls(1) can (and should) behave identically. > > But there are "libraries" aka DSO's or loadable modules, and > executables (like /usr/bin/*-config) that intrinsically cannot > be made to have "identical" behavior, that don't ft into a > RHEL multilib model. > > And yes, SuSE has its own multlib model, but the product > that supports both 32/64 bit on the same platform isn't > really that different from the RHEL model I just described. >
Sorry if i disgress, but i want take advantage of your attention. It might be useful to migrate the autofu popt to version 2 of autoconf / automake? It is something I can certainly do, if you agree. I prefer to ask first. Thanks Elia > > 73 de Jeff >
