* Kamil Dudka:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 7:25:19 AM CET Kamil Dudka wrote:
>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 12:33:58 AM CET Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:19 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> > > On 12/2/21 15:08, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> > > > I didn't understood . What is the difference for /lib64/ld-2.33.so
>> > > > or
>> > > > /lib/ld-2.33.so ?
>> >
>> > rephrasing my question :
>> > What is the difference of /usr/bin/ld.so for /lib64/ld-2.33.so or
>> >
>> > /lib/ld-2.33.so ?
>>
>> /usr/bin/ld.so will have the same absolute path, regardless of glibc version.
>
> And /usr/bin also appears in default ${PATH} unlike /lib or /lib64.
Correct on both counts.
And Fedora 35 does not have /lib64/ld-2.34.so because it turned out it
caused a downgrade hazard due to the way RPM handles file removals.
Thanks,
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
