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

Re: Why /lib64 instead of /lib/x86_64?

On Feb  8, 2004, florian_bachmann t-online de (Florian Bachmann) wrote:

> Gene C. wrote:
>> On Sunday 08 February 2004 11:08, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>> The subject says it all.  /lib64 doesn't feel right.  Why add another root
>>> directory?  We already have /lib/i686, so /lib/x86_64 seems natural.
>>> Ditto for /usr/lib64.  /usr/lib/x86_64 looks better to me.
>> IIRC, /usr/lib64 and /lib64 are "standard" for 64 bit systems .. not
>> just the x86_64.  So on a Sparc, Itanium or the IBM z/Architecture,
>> you have 64 bit libraries in /usr/lib64 also.

> Same on IRIX on SGI workstations.

And mips64-linux, FWIW.  And also on ppc64.  But not on alpha, even
though it is a 64-bit platform.

The difference is that all but alpha have a legacy, partially
compatible 32-bit userland that had already taken /lib, and most
people want to be able to run their legacy applications on the 64-bit
systems.  /lib64 is the natural way to overcome this issue: just use a
new directory for the 64-bit userland libs.  Of course it could have
been /lib/64 or anything else, but following existing practice is
generally easier.

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Happy GNU Year!                     oliva {lsd ic unicamp br, gnu.org}
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva {redhat com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

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