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.margari...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:36:07 +0200 >> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@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, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcint...@linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
