{B,C}LFS State of Things (was Re: SVN-20070706: ...)

[Ken Moffat]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Joe Ciccone wrote:
> There is even a bigger problem with non-multilib builds. The way clfs 
> does it, all the 64bit libs go into /lib and such. FHS specifies ld.so 
> for 64bit x86_64 to be at /lib64/ld-linux-x86_64.so.2. If ld.so is in 
> /lib, all those nice 64 binary packages need to be modified or a 
> compatibility symlink has to be put in place. Plus a 64bit build will be 
> incapeable of running 32bit binaries, unless 32lib libraries are put on 
> the system somewhere, and /lib/ld-linux.so.2 knows where to look for them.
> 
 "all those nice 64 binary packages" - I suppose that means nvidia
or ati kernel modules ?  I don't know of anything else that comes as
64-bit without source.

 Yeah, if people want to run binaries, they do need a multilib
build.  Personally, I'd rather have the discussion about where LFS
should be going _after_ the holiday season.  Hey, gcc-4.2 might even
be working on ppc64 in clfs by then - although I doubt it ;)

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce