On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:10:28 -0800 Bryan Kadzban <br...@kadzban.is-a-geek.net> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > 5. Since we don't support multilib, remove all toolchain uses of > > lib64. No need for those symlinks any more. Everything goes to lib. > > I don't think this is a good idea. > > The 64-bit x86 SysV ABI *REQUIRES* /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to be the > runtime linker path. (This is a far more fundamental standard than LSB, > as well.) See the (google-docs-import-from-PDF) version of the ABI > standard: > > https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ms_KKFndiCkJ:www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf+linux+abi+64-bit+x86&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHjrdWF0azVfQCEu-s8nYZAzhXt5X9e2WZeIC7fqrwtyLFFUztVtpzfZo3ucJZB49pJHfDqqZL90ngzTG4BBheeJgy22Dj8RY9P0AjWbbKcXPzrvlKdn1S3W-CRCjpyqevNL6m&sig=AHIEtbS5MYc65tgRT4svuwi7uO7iAzNZyQ > > Specifically, section 5.2.1. In practice it works fine and causes no problems. I have everything in /lib with no lib64 symlinks. It makes a simpler and more straightforward directory structure. > Hacking around that in *any* way is not, IMO, a good idea. It also > forces me to deviate from the LFS book even more than I do now, since I > require multilib. Multilib is only of use if you want to run legacy binaries such as windows programs with wine. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
