I'm totally amazed, totally ... who was the "smart" guy who figured out, that on a 64bit system, the native libraries should be kept in a non-standard directory lib64???? Every program I stumble upon, is choking on this ... they all try to locate their "normal" libraries in /lib or /usr/lib and expect them to be 64bit. How come, this "smart" fellow didn't put non-native 32bit libraries as lib32 and 64bit native libraries where every-goddam-thing expects to find them?
Because "every-goddam-thing" is 32-bit! Therefore, if an ap isn't 64bit aware(looking for lib64 like all 64bit distros), it will find 32bit libs where it expects...... B-) On Wednesday 02 June 2004 03:00 pm, Örn Hansen wrote:
I'm totally amazed, totally ... who was the "smart" guy who figured out, that on a 64bit system, the native libraries should be kept in a non-standard directory lib64???? Every program I stumble upon, is choking on this ... they all try to locate their "normal" libraries in /lib or /usr/lib and expect them to be 64bit.
How come, this "smart" fellow didn't put non-native 32bit libraries as lib32 and 64bit native libraries where every-goddam-thing expects to find them?
onsdag 02 juni 2004 23:16 skrev acsguy@wtp.net:
Because "every-goddam-thing" is 32-bit! Therefore, if an ap isn't 64bit aware(looking for lib64 like all 64bit distros), it will find 32bit libs where it expects......
Why is evolution so slow!
B-)
=)
Because it wants to be like Outlook! hehehe B-) On Wednesday 02 June 2004 03:38 pm, Örn Hansen wrote:
onsdag 02 juni 2004 23:16 skrev acsguy@wtp.net:
Because "every-goddam-thing" is 32-bit! Therefore, if an ap isn't 64bit aware(looking for lib64 like all 64bit distros), it will find 32bit libs where it expects......
Why is evolution so slow!
B-)
=)
Örn, http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIB64 Read the rationale and you may agree it was the right thing to do. Roy Örn Hansen wrote:
I'm totally amazed, totally ... who was the "smart" guy who figured out, that on a 64bit system, the native libraries should be kept in a non-standard directory lib64???? Every program I stumble upon, is choking on this ... they all try to locate their "normal" libraries in /lib or /usr/lib and expect them to be 64bit.
How come, this "smart" fellow didn't put non-native 32bit libraries as lib32 and 64bit native libraries where every-goddam-thing expects to find them?
-- Roy Butler - MIST Development Environment Jet Propulsion Laboratory email: roy.butler@jpl.nasa.gov phone: 818-354-8825
torsdag 03 juni 2004 01:54 skrev Roy Butler:
Örn,
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#LIB64
Read the rationale and you may agree it was the right thing to do.
I understand the rationale, but I hardly agree with it. As of current, 64bit systems require more memory and cpu power, just run the system because of this rationale. You have both 32bit and 64bit libraries loaded and running at the same time. I see this implementation, as a handicap. Ideally, the system should be able to allow the same program to use either 32bit or 64bit libraries at will. Of course, this isn't so easy to do as you have 64bit values being passed to a program expecting 32bits. If it's a pointer to an int, the problem is solved by the architecture itself (only the lower 32bits would be written by a 32bit program). I understand that this ideal solution, is too hard to implement at this point in time. But on a native 64bit system, my opinion is that 32bit libraries should not be the norm. Regardless of the amount of 32bit programs around. As all programs compiled for the architecture, will be 64bits unless otherwise specified and this "otherwise specified" gives ample room for alternative library locations.
participants (3)
-
acsguy＠wtp.net -
Roy Butler -
Örn Hansen