Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Your script would fail in certain scenarios. For example, running a x86 binary on an amd64 system.
Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux)
Posted Oct 29, 2009 14:51 UTC (Thu) by dtlin (✭ supporter ✭, #36537)
$ uname -m
$ setarch i386 uname -m
Posted Oct 30, 2009 21:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
My initial reaction was the same: that we already have multi-file packages, so isn't it more natural just to have a binary for each architecture?
But when I thought about the real complaints (above) about the difficulty of living with /lib and /lib64, I realized this: which binary is required is a characteristic of facilities under user space -- kernel and/or machine. So placing the burden of choosing one on user space is wrong. And files are user space things; the kernel should not navigate directories.
Now, where having multiple architecture binaries in a single system (filesystem) isn't useful, I would prefer a package with multiple binaries, where the installer installs in /lib the relevant one.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds