sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32
- From: Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>
- To: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:24:14 +0200
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:08:13AM +0200, Thomas Orgis wrote:
> I wonder if we could just remove that question for multilib and stay
> with what we usually tell people: Get yourself a 32 bit chroot.
I would say yes, let's just rip it out. We already have a shortage of
people and time, the fewer difficult underused features to support the
better.
> But then, maybe we want proper support for bootstrapping such chroots
> instead. Cross toolchains and that.
We provide a 32-bit chroot tarball that'll work perfectly find on a
64-bit machine. I think for now that is a perfectly acceptable solution.
Again, the fewer difficult underused features to support the better.
> Thoughts?
Installing to /lib64 if it exists seems kinda dangerous. Or at least,
assuming a system is multilib if /lib64 exists seems kinda dangrous.
Sometimes the only reason /lib64 exists is because of stupid binary
software that is hardcoded to use /lib64, in which cases it is usually a
symlink to /lib.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards, Remko
-
[SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32,
Thomas Orgis, 03/27/2018
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32,
Remko van der Vossen, 03/27/2018
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32, Thomas Orgis, 03/27/2018
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GCC's multilib option, lib64 and lib32,
Remko van der Vossen, 03/27/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.