| 1 |
Dnia 2015-10-10, o godz. 17:48:15 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> All, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> fhs 3.0 was approved in June this year [1] [2]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The piece of it that I want to bring up is the lib and libxx |
| 9 |
> directories, both in / and /usr. The way I read the fhs, /lib and |
| 10 |
> /usr/lib should hold the files for the default abi and /libxx and |
| 11 |
> /usr/libxx should hold the files for the alternate abis. In earlier fhs, |
| 12 |
> there was an exception for amd64 which stated that the default libraries |
| 13 |
> should be in /lib64 and /usr/lib64. However, that exception is now gone. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Which only proves we ended up with yet another broken, pointless spec |
| 16 |
that's missing the point and can't be implemented sanely. I don't see |
| 17 |
a point discussing it further. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I know there was discussion/work in the past on removing the lib->lib64 |
| 20 |
> symlinks on amd64, but I don't remember what happened to that |
| 21 |
> discussion. So, I would like to bring it up again and get the info. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What would it take for us to remove the lib->lib64 links? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> What would it take for us to do this migration on live systems? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
vapier was working on it but it would probably involve lot more |
| 28 |
politics than we can handle right now. He's got some script to fix live |
| 29 |
systems but it is a quite dangerous operation by design, so I'm not |
| 30 |
convinced we really want to play with live systems like that. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> [1] https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/FHS |
| 33 |
> [2] http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.html |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
| 38 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives