On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:40:11PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > > (BTW... if you want to run both armel and armhf under multiarch... which > > package's libc gets to own ld.so? :P) > > I understand ld.so can be wherever we want, since it's part of the > executables, but I understand you're asking which architecture gets to > own whatever /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is, since there's only one of them and > we want to preserve compatibility with non-Debian binaries, right? > > On my amd64 system, /bin/rm points at /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for > an interpreter (*cough* /lib64) but on an armel system, it points at > /lib/ld-linux.so.3, and on i386 system /lib/ld-linux.so.2 so perhaps we > can expect 64-bits arches to have a suffix while 32-bits arches so that > one could leave ld-linux to 32-bits arches and use the suffix for > 64-bits arches? No idea whether there's a general rule for this >
It's not a general rule. For example, 32-bit sparc is /lib/ld-linux.so.2 while 64-bit sparc is /lib64/ld-linux.so.2. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
