El Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:54:12 +0200 Jakub Jelinek jakub@redhat.com escribió:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:34:30PM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
I did two ports of Mandriva to armv7. One of my choice to use softfp, and another hardfp port to be compatible with other distros. But other than a previous armv5 port, there is not much else of Mandriva arm, so, it would be "good to have" to be able to run binaries for either without resorting to a chroot, and only testing purposes.
Bumping major or calling it ld-linux-foo.so.3 is out of question?
I suspect /lib/ld-linux-$foo.so.3 would be fine. There's two questions here though: can the hard float loader have a different path and, if so, what should it be? We're still working on the first part.
If the agreement is that arm 32-bit softfp really needs to be installable alongside 32-bit hardfp (and alongside aarch64), then IMHO it should do it like all other multilib ports (x86_64/i?86/x32, s390/s390x, ppc/ppc64, the various MIPS variants) and what FSB says, e.g. use /lib/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib dirs for softfp, /libhf/ld-linux.so.3 and */libhf dirs for hardfp and /lib64/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib64 dirs for aarch64, have 32-bit arm-linux-gnueabi gcc configured for softfp/hardfp multilib with MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES, etc., have it configured in glibc, and for those that choose the Debian layout instead, if it is added somehow configurable into upstream gcc/glibc of course handle it similarly there. I just wonder why that hasn't been done 10 years ago and only needs doing now (of course, aarch64 is going to be new, talking now about the 32-bit softfp vs. hardfp).
Fedora at least plans to not support installing hfp and sfp on the same system, while not completely decided I don't think we will be supporting running 32 bit arm binaries on 64 bit arm. there is not a legacy support use case that I can think of i.e. existing common proprietary software. Though I imagine that we will use /lib64 for consistency with existing 64 bit arches.
Dennis