On 2/29/12 8:21 PM, Qrux wrote: >> It was me that put that in the BLFS page. Thanks for your email to BLFS >> dev about the problem with Bind. > > Why did we go in this circle?
Because he was kindly answering your questions. You've been operating on a misunderstanding. There's nothing inherent in BIND that requires lib64. If the toolchain was modified to only look in lib on non-multilib x86_64 (as I had originally proposed in the first version of my revisions) then no packages compiled by that toolchain would require lib64 either - everything you build from source would be fine with only lib. The only things that would require lib64 are pre-compiled 64-bit dynamically linked binaries from other systems which, possibly, have the right to expect /lib64, etc. That is why Bryan brought up his objection. Multilib and its usefulness is another completely separate discussion, and that is where Xen entered the picture as an example. Before berating others, please make sure you're accurately following the discussion yourself. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
