On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:02:37AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 04-Oct-24 18:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > The '/lib64' directory is just ugly and I want to get rid of that > > > or at least minimize its use (and I think I am not alone here). > > > > You're certainly not alone among the Debian amd64 team. I think you, > > as a group, are alone in the larger world. I find /lib64 a fairly > > elegant solution. > > The '/lib64' was created with a 32bit system in mind which had to be > supplemented by a few 64bit libraries, while the existing 32bit > libraries would stay at '/lib'. The current amd64 port is different.
Remember, this is not an invention of amd64. See: ia64, sparc64, s390x, mips64. All of which have very different scenarios for when a particular library format is preferred. All of which are older than amd64. > > There is a community list on which x86_64 ABI issues can be discussed. > > None of the Debian porters have ever come to talk about their > > objections to the layout there. If you seriously intend to change the > > ABI, then someone ought to have done that by now. > > There have been many discussions on this subject. I prefer to show a > working solution before presenting a proposal to change an existing > standard or to establish a new standard. Standards should be taken from > working and proven solutions not vice versa. Yes, but radical departures from standards should be _talked about_. By people from more than one implementor of the standard; that's what makes them standards. > BTW, the ABI document you cited is still a 'Draft Standard' AFAIK > and this may have a reason. Moreover, the sentence > 'However, Linux puts this in /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' > in that document hardly looks like specifying a definite standard, > especially in view of the preceding sentence which tries to > establish '/lib/ld64.so.1' as the one and only standard. > > I am not at all against a compatibility symlink '/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2' > to be able to run binaries from other distributions, > but we should not make every binary in our system depend on that symlink > when everything is really installed in '/lib' as it is in the current > amd64 port. Regardless of how the ABI document is labelled, it is widely deployed. All the changes I recall from this year have been simply adding documentation for existing practices. -- Daniel Jacobowitz
