[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Why not /usr/bin64?
- From: Jos Vos <jos xos nl>
- To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Why not /usr/bin64?
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:03:22 +0100
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]