On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:47:45 +0100 Frans de Boer <fr...@fransdb.nl> wrote:
> I have said that I will forward some patches to get rid of the > [...]/lib64 notions after I have tested my older patches against the > newest sources. > > I have created several source code changes and tested them, only to find > out that glibc, gcc, libcap and perl have at some places hard coded the > path to [...]/lib64 if an x86_64 machine is detected. I can change most > of it with good result. > > Still I do not send the changes yet because I am more and more convinced > that on machines with multiarch capabilities one should always use a > qualifier in the directory name for libraries. > Now, LFS is about teaching others how to start building your own > operating system and minimal support utilities. The project started out > in the era of 32-bit machines, adopted the 64-bit machine on the fly by > use of links to legacy library directories who's naming is no longer > discriminatory any more. What if we slip into the 128-bit (or +64-bit) > era? Still using the legacy [...]/lib notion? > The mail list has already many questions about the naming, maybe time to > step into the current reality? > > Looking at production machines, with current UNIX and Linux > distributions, many of them are already using a schema which > differentiate already between bit sizes. > Currently, I have a conversation on the FHS mailing list of due to the > ambiguous nature of qualifiers. > > A snippet from the latest mail exchange: > That said, I can appreciate also the idea that on hardware capable of > handling multiple architectures - read size of data paths - you always > use qualifiers, regardless if only one or multiple library directories > are used. So my previous second proposal is then augmented into: > > [/usr[/local]]/lib<qualifier> for each different set of libraries > > For compatibility one should also add > [/usr/[/local]]/lib -> [/usr[/local]]/lib<qualifier> > Where .../lib links to the library directory supporting the native bit > size. > > This implies that on 32-bit intel like systems, you always have a > [...]/lib32 directory, an optional [...]/lib16 and [...]/lib is a link > to [...]/lib32. > On 64-bit Intel like systems you have [...]/lib64, an optional > [...]/lib<32|16> and [...]/lib is a link to [...]/lib64. > > The above schema is already in widespread use on 64-bit machines, with > the exception of the legacy use of [...]/lib for 32-bit library directories. > Also, modification of sources for glibc, gcc, libcap, perl etc, are not > needed anymore. Due to the fact that some of these packages are core > packages and it would require a lot of effort for the maintainers to > change their current hard coded assumptions into more flexible code. > ------------------- > > I wait to see where this all is going before I decide what to do with > the current patches. Note that there are more patches required then > currently given in the LFS development branch. > > Regards, Frans. Will this change do away with the very annoying screens of warning messages from package libtool scripts about libraries seemingly having moved? I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds them off-putting. -- H Russman -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
