From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <44E0B340.3010206@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:30:40 +0200 From: Till Kamppeter MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3F62CBEE02D6404E98C65934617EB58268B93F@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <3F62CBEE02D6404E98C65934617EB58268B93F@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] [lsb-discuss] Agreement on directory structure for printing List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Wichmann, Mats D" Cc: Wendy Phillips , lsb-discuss , Michael Sweet , printing-architecture , "Printing-Sc (E-mail)" Or should we say that on 64-bit systems with backward compatibility to a 32-bit system there should simply be a ../lib64/.. patch corresponding to each ../lib/.. path but we do not specify for what the ../lib64/.. path is. In general if an absolute ../lib/.. path is given in a PPD a 64-bit system has to use ../lib64/.. instead if needed. Or can we do away with ../lib64/.. completely and make the driver supplier responsible for supplying a 64-bit version of their driver which works on the LSB-compliant 64-bit distros. 64-bit experts: Does this work without having ../lib64/.. paths in the printer driver directory structure? Till Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > > you're getting into tricky space here, is all I can say. > Some 64-bit distros are 32-bit plus 64-bit runtime support, > while others are 64-bit plus 32-bit runtime support. > I'm not sure there's a universal answer for either > LSB architecture, either - e.g. I think some ppc64's > are one way, some the other. >