Re: libgcc_s.so.1 yet again

[Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>]

Bo Thorsen writes:

> It is the way it's done on multiarch platforms:
> 
> [sledgehammer:/] # ll */libc*
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root      1384168 Sep 20  2001 lib/libc.so.6
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root     14646840 Feb 13  2002 lib64/libc-2.2.5.so
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           13 Feb 13  2002 lib64/libc.so.6 -> 
> libc-2.2.5.so
> 
> If you can come up with a way to have both a 32 and 64 bit libc.so.6 on the 
> system without a lib64 or something equivalent, I'd like to hear about it.

I don't object to the `something equivalent' part, but specificially to
lib{32, 64} parallel to lib: this solution gets unwieldly too fast,
especially if you consider platforms with more multilibs.  Thus my proposal
to keep the status quo with the default multilib in lib, and others in
subdirs of lib instead of separate lib<something> hierarchies.

And please treat libgcc_s in the same way as all other libraries, instead
of encoding the multilib variant in the library name in this one case only.

	Rainer