On 18 Sep 2001, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >>>>> "David" == David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com> writes: > > >>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:02:14 -0600, Doug Beattie <dbb@caldera.com> said: > Doug> Your reponse is welcome and invited. The LSB and FHS groups are > Doug> trying to better address the coexistance of 32 and 64 bit in the > Doug> 64 bit Itanium environment. > > Doug> Please review the following proposal and respond to the > Doug> "lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org" and > Doug> "lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org" mail lists. > > David> When will people learn that for Linux, source compatibility is > David> just as important as binary compatibility? For IA-64 Linux, > David> the decision was made that native libraries go into /lib etc > David> and that legacy libraries go somewhere else > David> (/usr/i386-*-linux/lib, commonly). > > Not to mention that ld.so has already been fixed to handle searching > through library directories containing libraries for a different > architecture than ld.so is running on itself. Hence the whole point of > ia32 binaries being unable to cope with ia64 binaries in /lib is > completely useless. > > It would have been extremely nice if the people who decided to write > this standard had started out by asking the people who did the > implementation work how the architecture really works and what > experience has been gained in these areas already. Who said, that this is already a "standard"? It's a proposal and you are welcome to comment on it. It seems like everybody is aware of the problem - this documents simply attempt to make sure, that we all play on the same sheet of music and avoid yet another difference between implementations. Bye, LenZ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lenz Grimmer SuSE GmbH mailto:grimmer@suse.de Schanzaeckerstr. 10 http://www.suse.de/~grimmer/ 90443 Nuernberg, Germany The trodden path is the safest.Received on Tue Sep 18 02:03:31 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:05 EST