[arch-general] The need for /lib64 - testing please
Hi all, I was looking at the /lib64 folder and wondering what it is really needed for... It just seems clutter to me on a pure x86_64 system (or even with a multilib in lib32 folders like we have). As far as I can tell, most things are perfectly fine without that folder and its two symlinks. I would like some help testing removing this so I can get an idea of what issues people run into. There is bound to be some software that makes assumptions about /lib64 in its installation and I would like to know (a) how widespread that issue is and (b) how hard it is to work around. If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across. Thanks, Allan
On 06/30/2011 10:48 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
Hi all,
I was looking at the /lib64 folder and wondering what it is really needed for... It just seems clutter to me on a pure x86_64 system (or even with a multilib in lib32 folders like we have). As far as I can tell, most things are perfectly fine without that folder and its two symlinks.
I would like some help testing removing this so I can get an idea of what issues people run into. There is bound to be some software that makes assumptions about /lib64 in its installation and I would like to know (a) how widespread that issue is and (b) how hard it is to work around.
If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across.
Thanks, Allan
removed and anxious to see results. i DO have mutlilib enabled/used fwiw. JB
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 23:48, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I was looking at the /lib64 folder and wondering what it is really needed for... It just seems clutter to me on a pure x86_64 system (or even with a multilib in lib32 folders like we have). As far as I can tell, most things are perfectly fine without that folder and its two symlinks.
I would like some help testing removing this so I can get an idea of what issues people run into. There is bound to be some software that makes assumptions about /lib64 in its installation and I would like to know (a) how widespread that issue is and (b) how hard it is to work around.
If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across.
Thanks, Allan
Allan: The binary version of VirtualBox from AUR fails without the /lib64 folder. I renamed the folder to /lib64.old, rebooted, the tried several apps. VBox was the only failure, so far. I tried reinstalling it and rebuilding the kernel modules to no avail. The message I get is: "no such executable. /opt/var/VirtualBox does not exist" From memory but very close. I get the same message when I try to run any of the virtualbox progs. The symlink in /usr/bin show to be broken. It shows an 'x' in the lower right corner. If I rename /lib64.old to /lib64 it runs with no problems. I haven't investigated any farther. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
2011/7/1 Myra Nelson <myra.nelson@hughes.net>:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 23:48, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi all,
I was looking at the /lib64 folder and wondering what it is really needed for... It just seems clutter to me on a pure x86_64 system (or even with a multilib in lib32 folders like we have). As far as I can tell, most things are perfectly fine without that folder and its two symlinks.
I would like some help testing removing this so I can get an idea of what issues people run into. There is bound to be some software that makes assumptions about /lib64 in its installation and I would like to know (a) how widespread that issue is and (b) how hard it is to work around.
If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across.
Thanks, Allan
Allan:
The binary version of VirtualBox from AUR fails without the /lib64 folder. I renamed the folder to /lib64.old, rebooted, the tried several apps. VBox was the only failure, so far. I tried reinstalling it and rebuilding the kernel modules to no avail. The message I get is:
"no such executable. /opt/var/VirtualBox does not exist" From memory but very close.
I get the same message when I try to run any of the virtualbox progs. The symlink in /usr/bin show to be broken. It shows an 'x' in the lower right corner. If I rename /lib64.old to /lib64 it runs with no problems. I haven't investigated any farther.
Myra
-- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
Hmm, never noticed the /lib64 dir. Have removed it in the morning, just for experiment. Can't notice any difference still, everything works as before, including winXP in virtualbox. -- -- Sincerely, Andrew Trabo
On Friday 01 Jul 2011 10:18:42 AM Allan McRae wrote:
If you want to try it out, just remove the /lib64 folder (after making sure it only has symlinks to ld-2.13.so and ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in it. Run your system as usual for a while and report any issues you come across.
Never bothered to look into it before. But I already have only this. $ ls -al /lib64 total 8 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 जन 25 17:27 . drwxr-xr-x 29 root root 4096 जन 30 04:07 .. lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 जन 25 17:27 ld-2.14.so -> ../lib/ld-2.14.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 जन 25 17:27 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> ../lib/ld- linux-x86-64.so.2 I am running full KDE desktop, virtualbox multiple VMs, multiple users(family members) but no multilib. The system was installed on dec 2009. I am using systemd since last 2 months, if that matters. -- Regards Shridhar
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
jwbirdsong
-
Myra Nelson
-
Shridhar Daithankar
-
v01d3r＠gmail.com