1 |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Nathan Phillip Brink <binki@g.o>wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 03:55:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > as for no-multilib systems, "lib64" will be the same, and "lib" will be |
5 |
> > symlinked to "lib64". this will be easier i think to share files between |
6 |
> > multilib and non-multilib 64bit systems. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Isn't this slightly more complicated than it needs to be? Why not just |
9 |
> use /lib and no symlink for no-multilib 64-bit systems? |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
Well, the last sentence you quoted is the answer: "this will be easier i |
13 |
think to share files between multilib and non-multilib 64bit systems." |
14 |
|
15 |
Whether having to maintain separate binaries for multilib and non-multilib |
16 |
amd64 systems is worth the tradeoff of having two lib directories is up for |
17 |
debate I guess. I'm not sure how many people install precompiled 64-bit |
18 |
binaries on their systems, but anybody who does maintain such a setup would |
19 |
probably prefer not to have to build against libraries both in /lib64 and |
20 |
/lib. |
21 |
|
22 |
Rich |