On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 12:31:06PM +1000, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > 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?
Surely it'd be wise to play on an existing convention (I don't know if this is covered by the FHS or not) of: /usr/<system-triplet>/lib Something similar could easily be applied to the loader and C library on the root partition (/lib/<system-triplet>/ ?) This convention is, and has been for sometime, used pretty much everywhere, and works well. Why re-invent the wheel and come up with *another* way of distinguishing between libraries for different platforms. -- Mo McKinlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ekto.org Read http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG/PGP Key: pub 1024D/76A275F9 2000-07-22
