Why not /usr/bin64?

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/1/15, Christopher Aillon <caillon at redhat.com>:
>
> On 01/14/2006 01:07 PM, 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.
>
> Users don't care whether they have the 32 or 64 bit version in general.
> This would not be a big deal for you I bet if plugins worked with the
> 64bit binaries.  That is the real problem you are trying to solve.  This
> is the wrong way to solve it.
>
> The real solution is the plugin vendors should provide 64bit versions.
>
> If you want a workaround, try a "plugin plugin" which is a 64bit plugin
> meant to handle the 32bit plugins out of process.  See
> http://www.gibix.net/projects/nspluginwrapper/ for a non-free
> implementation.
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list



Actually the only package i know where this would make sense is WINE.

32 bit compiled wine runs 16/32bit win binarys
64 bit compiled wine runs 64 bit win binarys

actually though i dont think its worth to have another binary dir. just
packaging it to another %{name} is sufficient in my eyes.

regards,
Rudolf Kastl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060116/53be9f2a/attachment.htm>