Why not /usr/bin64?

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Jan 14 21:32:10 UTC 2006

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:07:24PM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > Neal Becker schrieb:
> > 
> >> 1) 32bit in /usr/bin32, 64bit in /usr/bin64, and /usr/bin->/usr/bin64
> >> 2) 32bit in /usrbin32, 64bit in /usr/bin
> > 
> > Nice solution. However, what exactly is the problem that this solves?
> > 
> Meant /usr/bin32.  Anyway, problem is how to install both 64 and 32 bit
> versions of your favorite app.  Like, mozilla.  We x86_64 64bit users often
> have to install a 32bit browser so that 32bit plugins will work.

Since the i386 packages in x86_64 multilib distributions are simply
the ones from the i386 one, the 32bit binaries would have to land into

A solution to what you rpopse would be to have x86_64 binaries in
[/usr[/local]]/[s]bin64 and have come before the bin dirs in the

But the multilib policy is to simply use i386 packages when the x86_64
binaries don't work. And within Fedora Core's scope (only open source)
firefox/x86_64 does indeed work with all plugins. java and flash don't
count since they are not OSS.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060114/e157d057/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list