Thinking forward LFS-7.0

Andrew Benton b3nton at
Tue Mar 15 07:31:10 PDT 2011

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:50:28 -0500
DJ Lucas <dj at> wrote:
> On 03/14/2011 08:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > The only reason
> > for lib64 to exist is for those proprietary packages that have not been
> > updated for 64-bit operation.
> Did you mean /lib containing 32bit libs? /lib64 we don't really have a 
> choice about without more modifications, but the symlink works fine for 
> pure64.

What would it take to compile a 64 bit system without the /lib
=> /lib64 symlink (i.e, with the libs installed into /lib and
no /lib64)? Obviously, it works as it is, it just looks like an ugly
hack. I'd much rather (for aesthetic reasons) do away with
{/usr,}/lib64 if I could.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list