[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Why not /usr/bin64?



On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 09:25:04AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:

> On multi-arch, e.g. x86_64, we have /usr/lib for 32bit and /usr/lib64 for
> 64bit.  We should have a place for 32bit and 64bit bins.  To be consistent,
> 64bit would go in /usr/bin64.  This would cause massive problems for all
> the apps that expect to look in /usr/bin.  Here are 2 proposals:
> 
> 1) 32bit in /usr/bin32, 64bit in /usr/bin64, and /usr/bin->/usr/bin64
> 2) 32bit in /usrbin32, 64bit in /usr/bin

First, this is an issue to be discussed within the LSB community,
not in the Fedora community.

Some more comments (assuming in (2) you meant /usr/bin32):

-  As you point out yourself, apps expect to look in /usr/bin.
   So both suggestions cause problems to find apps that are only
   available in 32-bit format, which is a serious problem.

-  In case (2), 32-bit packages would have to be built twice: one
   time for 32-bit systems and one time for 64-bit systems.

-  The issue with 32-bit apps is in a lot of cases to support
   third party 32-bit software software on 64-bit systems.
   Option (1) conflicts with with this and it is important to
   realize that third party vendors will in most cases not
   provide two versions of 32-bit packages.

-- 
--    Jos Vos <jos xos nl>
--    X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV   |   Phone: +31 20 6938364
--    Amsterdam, The Netherlands        |     Fax: +31 20 6948204


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]