On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:08:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Thursday 05 April 2012 09:30:23 Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:09:46 -0500 Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> > Fedora does use /lib64 on x86_64 I would personally prefer /libhfp but >> > wouldn't object to /libhf though today we have f17 about to go beta >> > and all of rawhide built using /lib >> >> One potential problem that is born from the /libhf suggestion is the >> danger of having a new top level directory (/libhf) with only one file, >> the dynamic linker. AFAIU it, no distro is currently willing to move away >> from its existing scheme (/lib) > >i don't think that's true. on an x86_64 system, the 64bit libs are in >/lib64/. some distros tried to (pointlessly imo) resist and force 64bits into >/lib/ when the native ABI was x86_64 (Gentoo included), but those are legacy >imo, and afaik, they didn't break the ldso paths. > >so in a setup that only has hardfloat binaries, you'd have all the libs in >/libhf/, not just the ldso. > >> Loic suggested a -IMHO- better solution: to change the dynamic linker >> filename, not the dir, i.e. /lib/ld-linux-hf.so.3 (for this particular >> case). > >the implication in supporting both hardfloat and softfloat simultaneously is >that you'd could have them both installed. thus putting them both in /lib/ >doesn't make much sense if you're still going to need /libhf/ to hold >everything else.
Except you wouldn't - the Debian/Ubuntu plan with multi-arch is to put them all in cleanly-separated paths corresponding to the triplets. I'm concerned that the potential proliferation of /lib* directories here could become very messy over time. I'm surprised that people seem to be happy to invent another namespace on a much more ad-hoc and arbitrary basis than the (mostly) well-understood triplets that we already have defined in the toolchains. Multi-arch is an attempt to make things cleaner for those of us that care about having lots of different platforms supported in parallel. Seen against that background, I was hoping that using the multi-arch path for the armhf linker would make sense. For people that don't care about multi-arch for themselves, a simple symbolic link is all that's needed. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcint...@linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
