[RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat

[John Baldwin]

On Tuesday 18 January 2005 02:36 pm, Eric Wayte wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:41:01 -0800
> > From: David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org>
> > Reply-To: freebsd-amd64 at freebsd.org
> > To: freebsd-amd64 at freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:38:18PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> >> We need to decide how to have both Linux i686 and Linux amd64 compat
> >> support live side-by-side.  At the moment my leanings are for
> >> /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux.  We could also go with /compat/linux
> >> and /compat/linux64 <- taking a page from the Linux LSB naming
> >> convention (ie, they have lib and lib64).
> >
> > kan (Alexander Kabaev) fealt we could probably just follow Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux - which would put both 32-bit and 64-bit bits under
> > /compat/linux.  Upon thinking more about this; I think this will work.
> > The linux32(1) command will be a little harder to impliment than seperate
> > /compat/linux* (and I'm sure other details will have to be solved); but
> > this does simplify things from a ports application POV.
> >
> > jhb agreed this was probably the better approach so I think this is what
> > we'll do.
> >
> > --
> > -- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
>
> A previous post mentioned having 64-bit Linux around for Oracle.  Why
> don't we follow their standard of /lib (/compat/linux) for 64-bit
> libraries and /lib32 (/compat/linux32) for the 32-bit libraries?  This is
> how it's done on 64-bit Solaris anyway.

What RedHat apparently does is /lib for 32-bit libraries and /lib64 for 64-bit 
libraries, and kan's suggestion would be for us to do the same 
with /compat/linux/lib and /compat/linux/lib64.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org