Armhf dynamic linker path
dennis at gilmore.net.au
Sat Mar 31 16:52:06 UTC 2012
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:04:20 -0400
Jon Masters <jonathan at jonmasters.org> 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.
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. I guess i need to go find and read the existing
documents on what exactly is proposed and how it is intended to work.
Its not been thought about in the wider community, I suspect its not
been thought about in other distros also. I am open to being wrong.
More information about the linaro-toolchain