Armhf dynamic linker path
law at redhat.com
Tue Apr 10 04:23:09 UTC 2012
On 04/09/2012 10:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2012 15:47:56 Adam Conrad wrote:
>> are you not just as much hindering Debian over nothing more than a path to a
>> single file?
> nope. sounds more like self inflicted pain.
>> To be very, very, very clea here. multilib can not solve the "different
>> base arches on one system problem". lib/lib32/lib64/libhf/libsf will
>> overlap as soon as you have more than one of x86, arm, power, mips, etc.
> no one is saying it can (or at least, i'm certainly not). my point is that
> many people don't see this as a "problem".
Don't the multilib paths contain enough information to handle this?
They certainly have in the past as I can recall building toolchains that
handled several architectures within power, arm & mips families in the past
Is the problem here that glibc simply isn't building multilib paths in
the same way that GCC has for the last 15 years?
More information about the linaro-toolchain