2011/7/1 Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 23:48, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was looking at the /lib64 folder and wondering what it is really needed >> for... It just seems clutter to me on a pure x86_64 system (or even with a >> multilib in lib32 folders like we have). As far as I can tell, most things >> are perfectly fine without that folder and its two symlinks. >> >> I would like some help testing removing this so I can get an idea of what >> issues people run into. There is bound to be some software that makes >> assumptions about /lib64 in its installation and I would like to know (a) >> how widespread that issue is and (b) how hard it is to work around. >> >> If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure >> it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your >> system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across. >> >> Thanks, >> Allan >> > > > Allan: > > The binary version of VirtualBox from AUR fails without the /lib64 folder. > I renamed the folder to /lib64.old, rebooted, the tried several apps. VBox > was the only failure, so far. I tried reinstalling it and rebuilding the kernel > modules to no avail. The message I get is: > > "no such executable. /opt/var/VirtualBox does not exist" From memory > but very close. > > I get the same message when I try to run any of the virtualbox progs. > The symlink in /usr/bin show to be broken. It shows an 'x' in the lower > right corner. If I rename /lib64.old to /lib64 it runs with no problems. > I haven't investigated any farther. > > Myra > > > -- > Life's fun when your sick and psychotic! > Hmm, never noticed the /lib64 dir. Have removed it in the morning, just for experiment. Can't notice any difference still, everything works as before, including winXP in virtualbox. -- -- Sincerely, Andrew Trabo
