Armhf dynamic linker path
law at redhat.com
Wed Apr 11 12:19:38 UTC 2012
On 04/10/2012 04:42 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> It's one of the things we're trying to achieve with multi-arch. We can
> support mixed-ABI, mixed-OS, mixed-architecture environments cleanly
> on one system, using a consistent set of packages for all. Setting up
> a cross-compilation environment suddenly becomes easy - install the
> cross-compiler and the libs for the target platform straight from a
> normal Debian mirror as binary packages.
> See http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/TheCaseForMultiarch for more
I've read it and still don't see the benefit, particularly as it relates
to mixed instruction sets. Or more precisely, I don't see the value in
supporting mixed instruction sets. Once you drop the mixed instruction
set argument I think the whole argument for embedding the target triplet
into the dynamic linker pathname falls apart.
> We have to agree on a standard path if we're ever going to have
> working cross-distro binaries, and that's increasingly important to us
> in the ARM world. By all means ignore the multi-arch route that the
> Debian world is following, but please accept our reasoning for the
> linker location.
But the entire reason behind the need to embed the triplet into the
dynamic linker's path is the debian multi-arch stuff AFAICT. I think
that's what many folks are complaining about.
I realize the goal here is to allow a single binary to run on multiple
systems and I think that's a worthy goal.
More information about the cross-distro