[slackintosh-users] Re: How to deal with openssl 32/64bit packages
- From: Naveen Nathan <naveen@xxxxxxx>
- To: slackintosh-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:18:59 -0800
> > glibc_biarch-something-powerpc64 ? the "_" should be legal in package
I personally am somewhat in favour of this but the 'biarch' sounds
confusing as the architecture is specified as powerpc64 already.
On the other hand, when you consider gcc, that is a 'biarch' compiler
for powerpc, so it too could have a biarch suffix.
Bleh, I guess I'm just wrapped up in semantics :),
> It would solve some problems but i don't like magic suffixes :-)
Agreed.
> Maybe the most clean approach would be to have powerpc64 packages
> include a 32bit and a 64bit version:
>
> Example: openssl-0.98z-powerpc64 would include:
>
> /usr/lib/ <-- 32bit stuff
> /usr/lib64 <-- 64bit stuff
> /usr/bin/openssl <-- 64bit binary
So the 64bit bins will always be in /usr/bin. This seems fine.
I assume
that the 64bit packages will have to be upgraded within the same time
period as 32bit packages to make sure that everything is linking to
the correct library versions.
Other related posts:
