Rick Troth wrote:
> A good friend
> from a community shared by many on this list
> often signs his e-mail "WIRDI", whatever is right, do it.
>
> I'm trying to get a handle on the /lib and /lib64 mess.
> At first, I was put off by SuSE's use of /lib64, but it may be
> "the right thing". What do y'all think? What precedent is there?
> (IS there precedent?)
>
> Clearly, having both /lib for 31-bit and /lib64 for 64-bit
> facilitates the kernels ability to run either 31-bit or 64-bit
> executables. Having just one /lib would make that more difficult.
> But mixed-mode workloads alone would not seem to justify
> branching the standard directory suite in such a way.
> Is there something more?
I would preferably be looking for an appropriate standard,
rather than merely "precedent", for something like this.
And fortunately, there is: The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
version 2.2, mentions a /lib<qual> for "alternate libraries",
and in a footnote explicitly mentions that this is commonly
used for 64-bit or 32-bit support on systems which support
both, in the form of a /lib32 and a /lib64 directory, and
a /lib symlink to one of them.
Note that the LSB refers to FHS 2.2 for matters concerning
the file system hierarchy.
--
Willem Konynenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Konynenberg Software Engineering
