Re: Pure 64 bootloaders

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
>> Jim Gifford <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I have been working on a project to create a Pure 64 bit distro of
>>> linux, nothing 32 bit in the system. I can accomplish that with no
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully you're using /lib64 for that, otherwise your
>> packages will be incompatible to everybody else and not FHS compliant.
>> If you don't please don't submit any patches to hardcode this to
>> upstream packages.
> 
> 
> /lib64 is an awful scheme.  I'd avoid it.
> 

Indeed. It just helps to keep unclean 32bit applications
alive.

Maybe you would like to check Debian for amd64? The 32bit
stuff is purely optional (except for the boot loaders, AFAIK).

http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/


Regards

Harri

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Pure 64 bootloaders
    • From: "Roger Heflin" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Pure 64 bootloaders
    • From: Jim Gifford <[email protected]>
  • Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
• Next by Date: Re: [GIT PATCH] More PCI patches for 2.6.13
• Previous by thread: Re: Pure 64 bootloaders
• Next by thread: RE: Pure 64 bootloaders
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]