Joel Wiramu Pauling posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 May 2005 02:53:06 +1200:
> (the main reason why lsb want to keep it is because all other 64bit archs > reside in lib64) I don't believe that's the case, actually. If what I've read is correct, ia64 (itanium aka itanic <g>), which is /not/ hardware dual arch, but runs 32-bit stuff in emulation, not in hardware, has its 64-bit libs in the normal lib dir, /not/ lib64. The reasoning, from what I've read (not from personal examination of the issue), for the LSB lib64 standard on amd64, is actually very close to directly opposite what you stated. That is, in the case where an arch is /not/ dual-bitness (dual arch), lib is to contain the native libraries, emulations will be in other locations (thus lib32 on ia64). Where an arch is fully dual arch (dual bitness) in hardware, however, lib contains the 32-bit (native) libs, lib64 contains the 64-bit (native) libs. That's exactly the case with amd64 according to the LSB (and I believe tho I could be very wrong since I've no personal experience with them, that the same applies to ppc64, and I'm guessing sparc64 as well, with alpha being 64-bit hardware from the beginning on Linux, thus like ia64), and therefore the defaults for most packages. Yes, it can arbitrarily go either way, but there will be /more/ upstream compatibility problems for Gentoo amd64 devs if they fight that, because it's the standard. If they make it the Gentoo standard as well, OTOH, where there /are/ problems, upstream and community cooperation will be easy to get, because we aren't pulling against everyone else, as we are now. Thus, once we fit the standard, it'll only get easier as time goes on. Until then, it'll only get harder as time goes on. There's a /reason/ the Linux community doesn't fragment into a bunch of incompatible distributions like the Unices of old did, even if some level of differentiation is healthy and desirable. That reason is that the further you get from the mainstream, the harder you have to work to keep things working right, because the more of it you end up doing yourself. The closer you stick to the mainstream on major issues such as this, the easier things are for you, and the more time you have to do stuff that actually differentiates you in a constructive and useful way from the other distributions. As for changing the LSB standard now, not likely. What's there is now effectively written in stone (umm... etched in hardware?? <g>), for compatibility reasons. There's far more reason to keep with it than there'd /ever/ be to change, so it won't be changed. If you don't like it, perhaps the most productive thing you could do would be to switch to ia64 or another 64-bit hardware only arch, where again, the community will be on your side. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
