Jim Knoble writes: > > I don't. Perhaps there aren't systems yet that can act like more than > one 64-bit (or 32-bit) architecture, but that doesn't mean we should be > so short-sighted as to expect there never to be. And is 'ia64' > different from whatever AMD's 64-bit architecture is called? If they > are different, i think it possible, if not likely, that distributions > would want to include libraries for both architectures on the same > system (and hence call them different things).
If they do need to have ia64 libraries and AMD 64 bit libraries installed concurrently[1] on the same system then we do need architecture specific names, but I query if this really is the case. If the distributions are going to need to distinguish between /lib/lsb-ia64 and say /lib/lsb-amd64 then are they also going to need /bin-ia64 and /bin/amd-64? > Use the architecture name, not just the number of bits. It avoids > potential problems down the road. I'm just wondering if we're building too much into it - more than we need to. Chris. [1] I'm not sure why this would be necessary. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia
