From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17430 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2007 07:21:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 17416 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2007 07:21:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ms9.webland.ch (HELO ms9.webland.ch) (194.209.78.139) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:21:10 +0000 Received: from indel.ch ([84.73.11.188]) by ms9.webland.ch (Webland.MailServer.v.8.9.6) with ASMTP id ZTP82406 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:21:06 +0100 Received: from FABI.indel.ch [192.168.1.91] by indel.ch [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:20:38 +0100 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20071220081814.01daa700@localhost> X-Sender: cenedese@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 [via SMTPAuth 0.9, bisswanger.com] Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:21:00 -0000 To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org From: Fabian Cenedese Subject: Re: Problem building gcc-4.2.2 on 64-bit ubuntu linux In-Reply-To: <4769CBC8.8060705@computer.org> References: <47694E5D.10207@cadenas.de> <4768E104.2000801@cadenas.de> <47691F4A.4010607@cadenas.de> <47692CD3.7040708@cadenas.de> <4769342E.2020004@cadenas.de> <47694E5D.10207@cadenas.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Return-Path: cenedese@indel.ch X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 >Ubuntu decided to find a 64- vs 32- bit setup incompatible with >predecessor distros. Presumably, there is an ubuntu patch set for this, >but it's quite inconvenient that they chose to break the scheme chosen >by their predecessors. The scheme chosen by everyone else is to put the >64-bit stuff in /usr/lib64, and the 32-bit stuff in /usr/lib. Pretty >much the kind of mess Bill Gates wanted to see the alternatives get into. Actually I'd have preferred something similar on Windows than the even messier 64bit stuff in Windows\System32 and the 32bit stuff in Windows\SystemWoW64. Logical, isn't it? Sorry for not contributing something substantial. bye Fabi