Phone call (was Re: Armhf dynamic linker path)
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 23:44:22 UTC 2012
Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope <michael.hope at linaro.org> escreveu:
> On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>And here's the details as promised.
>>>I've started a wiki page at
>>>with a strawman agenda for now, and a Doodle poll at
>>>to see when the best time is for the call on Thursday/Friday. Please
>>>fill in the times that work for you ASAP and I'll announce the result
>>>during Wednesday. Ideally we'd like stakeholders from all the relevant
>>>distros and the upstream toolchain developers to be there, able to
>>>represent their groups and (importantly) able to make a decision here
>>>on what we should do.
>>>Apologies for the short notice, but we need a decision quickly.
>> And the best time turns out to be Friday at 15:00 UTC (16:00 BST,
>> 11:00 EDT etc.). Of the 10 people who responded in the poll, the only
>> person who can't make that time is Michael in .nz. Sorry, Michael.
> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> * is similar to /lib/ld-x86-64.so.2
> * keeps the libraries and loader in the same directory
> * doesn't invent a new /libhf directory
> * is easier to implement in GLIBC
> * is architecture and ABI unique
> * requires less change for distros where the hard float libraries are
> already in /lib
Sorry for more bikeshedding, but afaik rpm based distros are
using the armv7hl identifier, so it could as well be
Other variant could be
but that only if one wants to implement multiarch with sysroot
set to /armv7hl-linux, but that creates several other issues...
> I'm happy to do the GLIBC and GCC implementation.
> -- Michael
> cross-distro mailing list
> cross-distro at lists.linaro.org
More information about the cross-distro