On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 at 19:16, Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Michael Hudson-Doyle: > > > There is another wrinkle of course in that Debian/Ubuntu install these > > files to /lib/$multiarch/, not /lib or /lib64 as upstream expects. > > > > What I've implemented[0] for Ubuntu (only for testing so far) is to > > install libc to /lib/$multiarch/libc.so.6, the dynamic linker to > > /lib/$multiarch/$dynamic_linker_soname, and then have a symlink from > > the ABI-mandated dynamic linker path to the new path for the dynamic > > linker. This feels like a reasonable compromise between the upstream > > changes and what Debian does to me but I'm certainly interested in > > hearing other opinions (ideally before Ubuntu feature freeze :-p). > > I agree that this layout is reasonable. Thanks for thinking about it! > The target of the remaining > symbolic link is stable, so it does not matter for the issues that we > tried to address with this upstream change Right, I'm not an expert in this stuff but I tried and failed to think of ways upgrades could go wrong. > (but then, dpkg is not > impacted by the symbolic link issue as far as I know). > Is this problem written up somewhere? I only subscribed to libc-alpha a few weeks ago. > Would you please consider contributing your multiarch patches upstream? > I see no problems in principle. As above though I've only been seriously involved in glibc maintenance for maybe a month so I'm a bit lacking in context :) Cheers, mwh > Thanks. > > Florian > >
