Armhf dynamic linker path
jonathan at jonmasters.org
Sat Mar 31 16:16:28 UTC 2012
On 03/31/2012 12:04 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change. AFAIK
>> we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard of it, we
>> have moved everything from /bin /lib /lib64 to under /usr in Fedora 17.
>> we do have symlinks to the original locations.
> For context, we have discussed this several times at Linaro Connect and
> other events, and I've talked it through with Jeff Law and others. What
> we agreed to at the time (and in other conversations) was that following
> an upstream proposal for a linker prefix change, then we'd look at it. I
> know a number of baseos types on the Fedora end actually like the idea.
> So, it would be unfair to say it hasn't been thought about, but it's not
> been put out to FESCo, etc. because this is something that needs to fix
> changed upstream before Fedora.
So they're doing the right thing here in proposing stuff upstream.
That's the long and the short of it. I suggest we allow that to happen,
and some of us who think it's a good idea can express enthusiasm for
those patches. Then, once there is an upstream solution, we can come
back to the Fedora community and suggest some changes more broadly. This
didn't happen in a vacuum (honest), but we knew that nobody in Fedora
would be interested in a non-upstream viable solution.
This is another reason why v8 will not be allowed to repeat the same
mistakes. None of us in any of the distros should adopt any v8 release
until we have agreed on the path to the frigging linker. That's just
plain crazy. I note that I was up late reading the prelink sources and
I'm also wondering (totally unrelated) how much fun that will be :)
More information about the linaro-toolchain