On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:38:58PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Lo! On 05.01.2017 17:03, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > [...] >> > ## Advantages >> > >> > * Simplification of build-tree creation. We wouldn't have to maintain the lists >> > and hacks that are required to make sure that multilib packages land in the >> > correct repositories. >> > [...] >> >> Just wondering: Why don't we switch to a multilib/multiarch solution >> similar to the one that Debian/Ubuntu uses? They put libs in directories >> like /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu and /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu >> (https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec ). If we'd switch to a similar >> solution a new (de facto) standard might evolve and in the end nobody >> would have to deal with hacks any more, because all major distros would >> put libs in the same directories. Iirc their model has benefits for >> cross-compilation, too. > > IMHO this is a much better idea. Also being closer to Debian means > less hacking required to build GCC (or at least, it's the same hacking > as Debian needs). Also we can kill /usr/lib64 finally. > It improves the situation, but /usr/lib64 will be with us for a long time to come... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
