[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Pure 64 bootloaders

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Harald Dunkel
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:31 PM
> To: Jim Gifford
> Cc: Jeff Garzik; Andi Kleen;
> Subject: Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
> >
> >
> > /lib64 is an awful scheme. I'd avoid it.
> >
> Indeed. It just helps to keep unclean 32bit applications alive.

Reality is that it is difficulty to remove the older junk.

I guess I see 5 choices:

Use lib for whatever the standard os/arch size is.

Use lib32 for the non-standard size.

Continue the current mess.

Use both lib32 and lib64 and maybe put a link from lib to the
default one, probably lib64.

Use both lib32 and lib64 and don't put a link.

Designate the bit size in the name of the lib, ie libc.so64 or
libc.so32 or something similar and put them all in the same
directory and let the lib loading code take care of finding the
correct size.

#5 would seem to be the most robust and simplest to administer,
and the most obvious, and the easiest to modify if something like
this was to happen again.

Who came up with lib64? I thought I first saw it either on a
irix 6 machine or a early solaris 2.x machine.

> Maybe you would like to check Debian for amd64? The 32bit
> stuff is purely optional (except for the boot loaders, AFAIK).
> Regards
> Harri

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-12 16:48    [W:0.070 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site