| 1 |
Markos Chandras posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:25:07 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> that would be ideal, and drop "amd64" in the process: x86/x86_64/ |
| 4 |
>> -mike |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Ok so we will probably have the following multilib options |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> * x86(ABI=x86_32{/lib}) + amd64(ABI=x86_64{lib64/}) + |
| 9 |
> x32(ABI=x32{/libx32}) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> * x86/amd64 ( what we already have in amd64 multilib ) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This one would probably be x86/x86_64 , as Mike said drop amd64. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
(Tho I much prefer amd64, or if it's changed, something else without a _, |
| 16 |
which is hard to type, at least on the US/qwerty layout, requiring both |
| 17 |
hands to get the shift, and two rows up plus over to get the _, amd64 |
| 18 |
works quite nicely in that regard.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> * x86/x32 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> and |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> * x86 (no multilib for 32-bit processors ) ( what we already have in x86 |
| 25 |
> profile ) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Don't forget current amd64/no-multilib. I guess that's be |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
* x86/x86_64/no-multilb |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
(Tho again, I'd prefer keeping amd64, for x86/amd64/no-multilib.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And presumably there's also be |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
* x86/x32/no-multilib |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 39 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 40 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives