Meant to reply to the list. Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jon Masters <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AArch64 triplet > Date: November 22, 2012 3:32:45 AM EST > To: Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> > > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 20 November 2012 03:25:56 Jon Masters wrote: >>> The only reason for making a change at this time appears to be cosmetic, >>> for removing /lib for example. I can understand that, and if we were >>> discussing this a year ago (or even months ago when I first raised it on >>> this list), then it might be a reasonable change, but at this time I >>> cannot find an overwhelming technical justification. >> >> i don't think removal of /lib/ is really feasible. that's the path that >> gets >> used for firmware (/lib/firmware/) and kernel modules (/lib/modules/<kver>/) >> regardless of the default ABI on the system. >> >> similarly, userspace packages are using that path for supplemental files >> like >> the bootloader (grub) or ABI-independent settings (udev rules). > > Sorry for the confusion. By "getting rid" what I mean is not having libraries > in there. As is obvious, there will always be plenty of stuff in there, and > it's mandated by standards anyway. So, really, if it's down to whether we > (Fedora) have one thing in /lib that could be in /lib64 vs. not then I would > rather just keep the dynamic linker where it is in /lib and move on with life. > > By the way, we announced our initial Fedora bootstrap work tonight. The wiki > has a lot of information about what is currently being done, along with > initial images that will grow: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/AArch64 > > Jon. > _______________________________________________ cross-distro mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro
