Michał Górny wrote:
>
> I have been running such a layout for over a year. [...]
Thanks for clarifying that this already was discussed.
Obviously, I was not aware about this discussion, and perhaps
I was not the only one.
> instead of waking up last-minute to redesign [...]
Pointing me to the d
On czw, 2017-08-03 at 07:50 +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > Debian puts 64-bit libs in /lib/(host)
>
> Yes, this is somewhat weird:
> They have /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ and /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/
> but anyway they use /lib32 instead of e.g. /lib/i686-linux-gnu/
> Their reasons fo
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Debian puts 64-bit libs in /lib/(host)
Yes, this is somewhat weird:
They have /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ and /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/
but anyway they use /lib32 instead of e.g. /lib/i686-linux-gnu/
Their reasons for this are mysterious to me.
> Migrating Gentoo to a "multiarch" con
Michał Górny wrote:
>
> 'No mainstream' as you claim it doesn't mean it's fine to invent yet
> another completely incompatible solution.
As I understand, the compatibility with Debian might be increased
(keeping /lib32), at the cost of slightly decreasing the compatibility
with Red Hat (concernin
On śro, 2017-08-02 at 21:02 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > > Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > > > > If this already was discuss
"Walter Dnes" writes:
> And what happens when 128-bit cpus debut? /lib128?
In this case CHOST makes more sense. From my understanding, the Exherbo
approach is the cleanest.
Benda
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >>> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
> >>>
> >>> What is the rationale for
On śro, 2017-08-02 at 19:07 +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > > If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
> > >
> > > What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
> > > Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner t
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
>>>
>>> What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
>>> Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a com
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
>>
>> What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
>> Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a completely
>> split structure
>>
>> lib64
>> lib32
>> libx32 (p
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 17:51:43 +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
>
> What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
> Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a completely
> split structure
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
>
> What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
> Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a completely
> split structure
>
> li
Michał Górny wrote:
>
> What are your thoughts?
If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise:
What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib?
Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a completely
split structure
lib64
lib32
libx32 (possibly)
lib
13 matches
Mail list logo