[lsb-discuss] Definitive use of /etc/* files for system-wide application data maintenance

Christopher Yeoh cyeoh at ozlabs.org
Mon Nov 23 03:34:40 PST 2009


On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:30:02 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> > Mainly you want FHS for issues that seem to be "more generic" than
> > LSB (http://pathname.com/fhs)
> 
> I'm glad you brought this up.  It seems that the FHS is not keeping up
> as the most recent change is in 2004.  I know it shouldn't change
> frequently, but it does need to address some things a little better.
> For instance is /usr/X11R6 still really valid when we are using xorg
> X11R7.5?

The FHS has been pretty idle for quite a while. Perhaps we need to
bring back a bug db to keep track of anything important and when
there's enough do a push for a release.

> I'd also like to see a discussion about removing /lib64, or at least
> marking it deprecated.  The reason for it seems to be less and less
> valid as Linux continues to progress.  Virtually all Intel/AMD
> hardware in the last few years has 64-bit hardware.  The only reason
> to have both 32-bit and 64-bit applications on the same system is to
> support old, unmaintained software that can't be rebuilt as 64-bit
> executables or libraries.  It reminds me of the days when we were
> supporting 16-bit software on a 32-bit system.  That has gone away.
> I feel we need to at least initiate the process where 32-bit support
> on a 64-bit system is discouraged so it can eventually be eliminated.

On some architectures there are performance reasons for using 32 bit
binaries instead of 64 bit ones. On PowerPC for example if you don't
actually need 64 bit then a 32 bit binary can be smaller (less pressure
on the cache), pointers can be a bit faster etc.

So it can be quite appropriate to have a mixed 32/64 bit environment.

Regards,

Chris
-- 
cyeoh at ozlabs.org



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list