Armhf dynamic linker path

[Matthias Klose]

On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio<riku.voipio at linaro.org>  wrote:
>>> On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore<dennis at gilmore.net.au>  wrote:
>>>> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
>>>> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good
>>>> place. the wider community needs to be engaged for greatest acceptance.
>>>> otherwise then if falls into the vacuum of those attending the events.
>>>> Like I said its not that it could never happen just that its not been
>>>> discussed at all. so requesting that distros adopt it is a bit harsh
>>>> and unrealistic.
>>>
>>> At Linaro conference the need for changing linker path was agreed on,
>>> as well as the need to get a wide community agreement on it. To do the
>>> latter, an ARM minisummit was organized on at Plumbers 2011 [1].
>>> Invites to wide range communities and distributions were sent, and for
>>> most someone attended. For the people not able to join physically, a
>>> call-in line was organized (I was on the call for example). With the
>>> expectation that people who attended in face or on call would convey
>>> the message back to their own communities. This didn't seemingly
>>> happen for everyone it seems.
>>
>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone
>> can start off on the same page with a sane path.  i don't think
>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that debian is deploying
>> makes sense though.  this seems like a fairly behind-the-back maneuver
>> in terms of slipping it into mainline.
>
> Right. For clarification, we (Fedora) have no plans to do multi-arch
> (though I know many of us are personally interested in the idea). That
> doesn't mean we can't have a platform specific linker path change.

yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso name in a 
multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else needs to be in this location. 
  I am a bit surprised that this comes up again, and I really would like to 
settle this within the next two weeks. Note that Ubuntu 11.10 already did ship 
with this ldso name based on these discussions.  Jon, afaicr I did ask this very 
same question (if the ldso name in a multiarch location would be acceptable) at 
Linaro Connect in August 2011 in Cambridge, and afaicr you didn't object to this 
path.

thanks, Matthias