On 29-12-16 07:59, Hazel Russman wrote:
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.
As far as I have seen, they only appear when creating the target
binaries. So it is just a minor issue, I guess. But to give a straight
answer to your question: I don't know yet. I will change the layout
(again) and test everything. I don't expect any difficulty or bump since
the proposed layout is very similar to what was used under LFS. The only
real change is that links and directories switch contents.
We should also not forget to preserve the purpose of LFS in the first
place. A means to get familiar of building a own Linux OS. There is - in
my view - a need to get closer to real world examples and therefor be
done with library directory names originating from the 16/32-bit era.
--- Frans.
--
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
