So, is this what happens:
gcc => looks in /usr/lib
gcc -m32 => looks in /usr/lib32
gcc -m64 => looks in /usr/lib64
?
Russel Winder wrote:
Walter,
I think your naming proposal here will lead to serious problems.
Speaking from a very Linux, indeed Debian and Ubuntu, centred
perspective, my machines have a natural bit width and so /usr/lib
relates to the natural bit width. 64-bit in may case. There is
also /usr/lib32 and /usr/lib64. In my case /usr/lib64 is a symbolic
link to /usr/lib. /usr/lib32 cotnains all the 32-bit libraries etc. In
all cases the name of a library is always the same, e.g. libphobos2.a no
matter what the bit width.
Obviously the DMD distribution can do what it likes as it doesn't
actually interact with /usr since it is not coming in via a package (as
32-bit packages should not be installed on a 64-bit platform -- see
above). The problem is though that the DMD distribution should not do
anything that makes it hard for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, etc.
packagers to work within the rules of their distribution.
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 22:37 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
Or even better, just go with:
libphobos.a 32 bit library
libphobos-64.a 64 bit library
and:
libphobos2.a 32 bit library
libphobos2-64.a 64 bit library
simple, easy, doesn't break anything.
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
