| 1 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If this already was discussed then sorry for the noise: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> What is the rationale for merging lib32 with lib? |
| 6 |
>> Wouldn't it be somewhat cleaner to have a completely |
| 7 |
>> split structure |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> lib64 |
| 10 |
>> lib32 |
| 11 |
>> libx32 (possibly) |
| 12 |
>> lib |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Here are a couple of reasons: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 1. Other distros (notably Red Hat and Fedora) put 32-bit libs in "lib". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
According to bug 506276, Debian has instead merged 64-bit to lib. |
| 19 |
So it seems to me that there is no "mainstream" to follow. |
| 20 |
Perhaps striving for the cleanest solution would be the best? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 2. The path to the 32-bit runtime linker (/lib/ld-linux.so.2) is |
| 23 |
> hard-coded in every x86 binary on your system. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I am afraid that these must stay exceptional in any case: |
| 26 |
Also currently, gentoo (and if I understood correctly, also Debian |
| 27 |
and Red Hat) has the possible ld-linux{,-x86-64,-x32}.so.2 symlinks |
| 28 |
in _all_ /lib* directories; I suppose that this is not intended to |
| 29 |
change. (I assume that a change might break some proprietary binaries |
| 30 |
which might have hard-coded the "wrong" directory.) |
Archives