On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:18:40AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 04-Oct-24 23:24, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:18:15PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > > > > This patch is harmless with respect to any LSB requirement. > > > The name of the dynamic loader, which is coded into every binary > > > can only be changed in the gcc package. This patch does not change > > > that. > > > > I don't know what you all changed in the gcc-3.4 archive. But > > this is what I now get with something I just compiled: > > > > ldd test > > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0000002a9566d000) > > /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > > (0x0000002a95556000) > > > > While with the pure64 archive with either gcc-3.3 of 3.4 it's > > still pointing to /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > > I patched the gcc-3.4 package in the amd64/gcc-3.4 archive to get that > result. For the patch I used please look at BTS #277852. I recompiled > the complete amd64/gcc-3.4 archive with that patch and without the > '/lib64' and '/usr/lib64' symlinks in place. I still have to reupload > most of the recompiled packages to alioth but you should be able to > debootstrap a new chroot from the amd64/gcc-3.4 archive and do a > 'rm /lib64' without making the system unusable.
Does your binaries run on other x86-64 distributions without any compat symlinks ? I think this is an absolute requirement for pure64. Cheers, Bill.