On 2011-06-27 15:59:27 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > If by "fat binaries" you mean executables,
No, I meant libraries (the term "fat binary" is used by the GMP library, but is here restricted to x86 subarchs). > If by "fat binaries" you mean shared libraries, they could either go in > /usr/lib, or go in /usr/lib/TUPLE for every appropriate tuple (using hard > links or something). See my other message concerning a possible problem with the search directory order. > But there's no real advantage in doing that, you could > just as easily install several "thin" libraries. Perhaps multiarch partly makes fat libraries more or less obsolete (unless some data could be shared, such as debugging symbols). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628003051.gb17...@prunille.vinc17.org
