[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] Paths for x86_64

[D Richard Felker III]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:30:34AM +0100, Christof Buergi wrote:
> </lurk>
> 
> D Richard Felker III wrote:
> > FHS is not a legitimate standard. It's been crap from day one.
> 
> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it still is the best accepted
> standard available. In fact, several distributions switched to it,
> because their userbase demanded it. Thus, FHS has some kind of
> legitimacy.

only among users of commercial/proprietary dists.

> Oh, and it made SuSE stop putting their init scripts into
> '/sbin/init.d', so it can't be that bad. ;-)

i wouldn't know about such shit as suse and redcrap.

> > This is still nonsense. Package managers should relocate files when
> > installing NON-NATIVE packages. Or better yet, refuse to install
> > non-native packages at all. WE WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS NONSENSE!
> 
> We had a heated discussion some weeks ago in the lists of the Linux
> Usergroup Switzerland about that very problem. In the end, the general
> consensus was, that

that your lug is full of idiots. at least that's the consensus i
reached... :)

> a) a pure 64bit operating system with encapsulated 32bit applications
>    is cleaner then a hybrid system, but impractical.

this is nonsense. why would you need any 32bit apps whatsoever?? just
recompile.

> b) usability is more important then ideology.

this is not usability vs ideology. it's short-term hacks versus
long-term usability. adding hacks to every program to make it install
libs in lib64 if arch==x86_64 is totally impractical and not usable.

> c) a pure 64bit system for x86_64 is not necessarily the best solution,
>    as the Opteron/Athlon64 is not a pure 64bit CPU, and the Xeon with
>    x86_64 support is no 64bit CPU at all.

huh? this is an idiotic windoze-like way of thinking.

> In other words: The lib64 advocators (which I was not part of) won the
> argument. And two former debianists are now running Gentoo and (gasp!)
> Fedora on their Opteron boxes. What I'm trying to tell you: The
> backwards compatible hybrid approach with lib64 is likely going to be
> the de facto standard, used and accepted by the majority of the
> community. It's not very nice to tell them, that their system is
> broken, with no reason but that you don't like the lib64 idea.

i don't care. supporting lib64 is the business of the distributor if
they want that crap, NOT the responsibility of every single software
author.

rich