On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:40:17PM -0400, David Wood wrote: > But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you are > no longer following the proposal. > > As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to > /usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around.
If /usr/lib/i386-linux exists, then /usr/lib is a directory. hence /usr/lib can't be a symlink. The files in /usr/lib can symlink to /usr/lib/i386-linux if you want, but /usrlib itself can't be anything but a directory. > But they won't. I must have expressed myself quite badly to have been > misunderstood on this so much. > > 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? > > 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. > > Right. But that's why you make the links, and then start on the work. Well I think what multiarch needs is for someone to go try it and figure out all the kinks that have to be solved. Ofcourse not everyone will necesarily even want multiarch. > Later, when the work is complete, we can support multiple architectures, > and until then, we have lost nothing - everything works as it does now. You will at least loose a bunch of inodes, but I think we could survive that. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
