Tim Prince wrote: > Ubuntu decided to find a 64- vs 32- bit setup incompatible with > predecessor distros. Not just Ubuntu, but Debian (and anything based on Debian.) You make it out to seem like the Debian maintainers did this because they just felt like being different, but I'm sure they had their own good reasons. After all, they had to maintain a local patch in their gcc trees to make it work, so it's not like they didn't also feel the burden of this. If the distro maintainers thought that the tradeoff of making tens of thousands of packages easier for their team of maintainers to manage warrants a two line change in some gcc configury, then that's their right. > Presumably, there is an ubuntu patch set for this, > but it's quite inconvenient that they chose to break the scheme chosen > by their predecessors. The scheme chosen by everyone else is to put the > 64-bit stuff in /usr/lib64, and the 32-bit stuff in /usr/lib. The patch to make this alternative layout work has been in mainline gcc for more than 2 months: <http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=128845> so the issue is now moot, or at least it will be before too long. > Pretty > much the kind of mess Bill Gates wanted to see the alternatives get into. And this is relevant how?!? Yes, it sure does suck that you can't install gcc in Debian. Oh wait, you can: "apt-get install gcc". The fact that Debian maintainers go out of their way to modify and "Debianize" many software packages sometimes does mean that occasionally patches are required to get upstream sources to work. This is a feature not a bug, and it's one of the reasons why I happen to cherish Debian based systems above all others. If you want something that's just a bunch of software thrown together without any patches (= without any cohesion), by all means run far and fast from Debian; it will drive you crazy. Brian
