On Tuesday 20 November 2012 21:07:48 Dennis Gilmore wrote: > El Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:25:56 -0500 Jon Masters escribió: > > On 11/19/2012 09:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > El Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:06:20 +0000 Steve McIntyre escribió: > > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:49:06PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > >>> On 09/17/2012 06:24 AM, Wookey wrote: > > >>>> The upstream patches have used the existing (poor man's > > >>>> multiarch) paths: > > >>>> /lib64 > > >>>> /usr/lib64 > > >>>> in order to make them fit in with existing upstream convention. > > >>> > > >>> I originally wanted to use /lib, but we're going to switch > > >>> to /lib64 for consistency with other 64-bit architectures, and so > > >>> on. I am concerned that we agree on the linker, but not on other > > >>> library paths. Will Debian and Ubuntu consider a package that > > >>> includes /lib64 "compatibility" symlinks so that non-multiarch > > >>> systems can share code with multi-arch ones? We don't need to > > >>> break this :) > > >> > > >> Those symlinks have been included in Debian for ages for amd64, so > > >> they'll be there for AArch64 too. > > > > > > so the question i see right now is where is the linker to be > > > located on the system? I personally think that it should go > > > in /lib64/ and before anyone gets to far in bootstrapping we should > > > fix it upstream to be located there. Does anyone disagree? > > > > I know we talked about this earlier, and I understand your concerns, > > but I think it is too late for this discussion. The upstream patches > > are already using /lib, and several distributions have already picked > > up that location. The path includes (specifically) the architecture > > in the path name component, so it won't interfere if someone did want > > to make a 32-bit mutli-lib arrangement in /lib with 64-bit in /lib64. > > > > 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. > > It has absolutely nothing to do with removing /lib thats not possible > it has to do with compatability and consistency with other 64 bit > arches. x86_64 sparc64 ppc64 all put the linker in /lib64
that's actually not true. s390x uses /lib/ld64.so.1. to a lesser degree, uClibc's 64bit is usually in /lib/ as well. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cross-distro mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro
