On 11/20/2012 09:07 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
<snip lib vs. /lib64 discussion>
It has absolutely nothing to do with removing /lib thats not possible
What I was saying, if I may, is that I understand a desire to have a /lib-free system in terms of no content having to be in there. As things stand, the only thing required to be in there on AArch64 is the dynamic linker, per the upstream patch posting. The path name is unique enough that a similar clash to what happened in ARMv7 with the multi-arch and non-multi-arch conflicts should not be an issue.
it has to do with compatability
This is why I raised the issue months ago. However, the decision to place the dynamic linker in /lib was made, and everyone is going to use that (thus preserving compatibility). Unfortunately, some distros will use "multi-arch" and some will not but it should be ok as long as we share the linker. The choice of /lib or /lib64 for the dynamic linker is disjoint from the issues related to other library locations.
We don't get to make this choice alone. Sure, if it were just Fedora then let's go ahead and use whatever we like. But I did ask what the path would be, and I was told that it would be /lib. In the absence of any real standardization body remaining in this world to have these things go through, we'll have to live with that on our end.
and consistency with other 64 bit arches. x86_64 sparc64 ppc64 all put the linker in /lib64
This I understand. However, again, we don't get to make that call. The call has already been made as part of the patch submissions, and unless everyone is very keen to switch, I think we'll live with it. I'm not actually trying to argue with you :) Just saying whether or not we happen to like the choice that has been made may make little difference if everyone is happily using the existing path (and may cause more harm in changing it vs. leaving it as it is).
Jon.