* David Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > >>Would they not work properly with the symlink in place? > > > >is /usr/lib/i386-linux a symlink back to /usr/lib or what? /usr/lib > > As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to > /usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around.
I'd like to see that symlink. :)
> I am not saying that one starts multiarch and immediately pretends its
> finished. Only that one can start, without breaking anything... so why not
> start?
This is true and I think we do need to start on it soon. I'm not sure
about not breaking *anything*, but what does get broken needs to get
fixed anyway.
> Why not make /usr/lib/i386-linux and make the links? New packages would
> eventually follow the new standard directly; old ones would be gradually
> ported over. The whole time, you are still pure64, or ia32. At some point,
> when dpkg/apt and the other infrastructure work is finished, and a usable
> subset of packages is compliant, then you can switch to "being" multiarch.
> In the meantime, you manage everything just as you do now.
It'd probably be better to get multiarch support in the base packages
first, but, eh.
> Right. But that's why you make the links, and then start on the work.
>
> Later, when the work is complete, we can support multiple architectures,
> and until then, we have lost nothing - everything works as it does now.
Eh, I'd rather try to do without the symlinks to start and then see what
breaks. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
