On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 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
> > 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
). 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!