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
). 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
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.
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.