On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:32:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:18:51 +0300 Konstantinos Margaritis konstantinos.margaritis@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:36:07 +0200 Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com wrote:
We really want consistency about the dynamic linker names etc. across different targets and sneaking silently multiarch paths on one architecture would make it inconsistent with all the others. So, please just use /libhf/ld-linux.so.3.
I personally find /libhf extremely ugly. If having a second path is a problem, how about using the triplet in the filename? Like:
/lib/ld-linux-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3
?
Unique per arch and not multiarched. And AFAIK, Linux can handle long filenames just fine...
every distro uses a unique triplet, by putting the triplet in there you then need to get all distros to change to using the same triplets.
Aargh. Again, use of a standard triplet for arm hard-float was agreed by all parties at the Plumbers' meeting last September. For exactly this reason. Now it seems that a number of people have totally ignored that consensus for the last six months.
I personally prefer /libhfp rather than /libhf but I am ok with using either. Any change from /lib would need us to do a mass rebuild. because while not 100% needed I would rather keep libraries with the linker. the changes to rpm to support it would be somewhat minimal. we have stated in Fedora though that we have no intention to support mixing hfp and sfp on the same system. we really do need to ensure consensus for arm64 which I think should be /lib64 for 64 bit arch consistency.
Precisely who in Redhat/Fedora land has the power to make decisions in this area? We've been clearly wasting our time thus far trying to negotiate agreements about the hard-float platform.
Cheers,