On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 02:23 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > If there's > > consensus that putting this stuff in /usr/lib32 on amd64 is prettier than > > /emul/ia32-linux, I see no reason not to move forward. > > My sense is that the "concensus" that exists is around FHS compliance. > While I personally consider /usr/lib32 pretty ugly, I am sensitive to > the fact that we have always tried to be FHS compliant in Debian.
FHS actually has a lib<qual> in it, where <qual> can be things like 32 or 64. For PPC64, s390x, sparc64 and AMD64 it says that 64 bit libraries should be put in /lib64 and 32 bit version in /lib. For IA64, it says 64 bit libraries should be put in /lib, but doesn't say where 32 bit versions belong. It says: "IA-64 uses a different scheme, reflecting the deprecation of 32-bit binaries (and hence libraries) on that architecture." I think 32 bit it makes sense to actually put 32 bit libraries on ia64 in /lib32 too, instead of the current /emul/ia32-linux/, and think it would be more inline with the FHS. Is there a reason it's using /emul/ia32-linux/ ? So I would like both ia64 and amd64 to use /lib32. > Looking over the open bug reports, it's well past time for another > general update of ia32-libs. I'll try to make time for it this week. In the end, I'd like to get rid of ia32-libs, and have it be a dummy package. But on the other hand, I don't want to make a biarch version of things like the X libraries. PS: Does this really have to be on -release? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]