Re: Installing Libraries on 64 bit systems

I was afraid you were going to say Ubuntu ;).  Given its pervasiveness, 
it might be a better idea to default to lib unless otherwise specified,  
but I'd like to keep the conversation going for a little while in case 
anyone else has another opinion.  I'll work on patching the buildsystem 
to expose an option in the meantime.

Rich

On 06/29/2010 11:29 PM, John Hoare wrote:
> My apologies, I meant to put that I'm using Ubuntu 10.04. I don't know 
> if theres any way to determine where the system "wants" 64 bit 
> libraries to be installed. We could put something in where we try to 
> detect the distribution and set the suffix appropriately, but this 
> sounds like a big pain that would be difficult to keep maintained.
>
> I do think there should be at least some way for the user to override 
> what the CMake logic has chosen.
>
> -John
>
> On 06/29/2010 11:19 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I'm curious as to which flavor of Linux you're working with.  I'm the 
>> one responsible for for the below 64 bit logic; I'm currently working 
>> with Fedora and I submitted the below patch when I was creating the 
>> rpm package.  I think exposing the library install directory in some 
>> fashion is probably the easiest way to go, that way you can override 
>> the detection logic most easily.  I'm leaning towards creating a 
>> -DLIB_SUFFIX option, but that's only because Fedora's buildsystem 
>> will add that particular flag to the cmake command line on 64 bit 
>> architectures.  The patch you included would accomplish the same thing.
>>
>> The question then becomes, should we default to a multilib 
>> installation on 64 bit architectures, or should we default to 
>> installing to "lib" unless the setting is overridden?  Since each 
>> distribution tends to handle multilib differently, we should probably 
>> find a setting that most Linuxes can deal with.  To be honest, with 
>> the lib suffix exposed we really don't need the fancy architecture 
>> detection logic at all   I lean towards defaulting to lib64 on 64 bit 
>> systems.
>>
>> I'm interested in hearing opinions for or against installing to lib64 
>> by default on 64bit linux.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> On 06/29/2010 10:10 PM, John Hoare wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It's been discussed a bit before about where libraries exist on 
>>> different systems. Some unixes have them in a lib64 directory and 
>>> some have them in the lib directory (and 32 bit libs in lib32). 
>>> Right now, as far as I can tell, it does not give you a choice when 
>>> you're building player, the libraries have to go into lib64.
>>>
>>> The issue for me is, that lib64 is not in the system's library 
>>> search path, so when I compile player, and link against player, when 
>>> I try to run any libraries linked against player's I get a library 
>>> not found error. My solution to this was to just expose the 
>>> PLAYER_LIBRARY_INSTALL_DIR CMake variable so that you can change 
>>> lib64 to lib if you so desire.
>>>
>>> Is there a better way to do this, or is this the way it should be 
>>> done. I've attached what I've done as a patch (it's quite simple) if 
>>> anyone is interested.
>>>
>>> I apologize if this specific topic has been discussed before, I 
>>> searched for a bit and couldn't find anything, only the discussion 
>>> about multilib linux (Player SVN trunk: Problem with playerc++ on 
>>> multilib Linux/x86_64)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John Hoare
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
>>> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
>>> Visit sprint.com/first --http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Playerstage-developers mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/playerstage-developers
>>>    
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
>> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
>> Visit sprint.com/first --http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Playerstage-developers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/playerstage-developers
>>    
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
> Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Playerstage-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/playerstage-developers
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first

_______________________________________________
Playerstage-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/playerstage-developers