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]>
- RE: Pure 64 bootloaders
- 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]>
- Pure 64 bootloaders
- 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):
