On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:19:05PM +0800, Yunqiang Su wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:34:37PM +0800, Yunqiang Su wrote: > >> Hi, as I asked that guys, they insist on using /usr/lib but not > >> /usr/libo32. :-( > > > > Who are the guys? What is the argument on using /usr/lib instead of > > /usr/libo32? > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2013/06/msg00006.html
Well we already have installed the n64 libraries in /lib and /usr/lib (in practice in the corresponding multiarch subdir), so we are not respecting the standard already. I therefore don't see the standard as an argument for o32 libraries. > > > >> Then, maybe this patch should be OK. > > > > I don't think it is ok. I don't feel comfortable in using the same > > directory for the system and biarch libraries. It means we won't be able > > to search among 64-bit libraries without looking at o32 libraries. > > > >> please consider it. > > > > What I propose is to merge all the non-biarch stuff, as a first step. > > Actually it might be already enough as o32 libraries can already be > > installed using multiarch. > > > > Then let's drop multilib support from eglibc? That's what I have committed so far. We can add the multilib support later when we agree about it, but I think with multiarch it should not be needed. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
