On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:08:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> i don't think that's true.  on an x86_64 system, the 64bit libs are in 
> /lib64/.  some distros tried to (pointlessly imo) resist and force 64bits 
> into 
> /lib/ when the native ABI was x86_64 (Gentoo included), but those are legacy 
> imo, and afaik, they didn't break the ldso paths.
> so in a setup that only has hardfloat binaries, you'd have all the libs in 
> /libhf/, not just the ldso.

That's exactly my concern. If /libhf is chosen for the dymamic linker path, but 
it's not adopted by everyone else for libraries and other files, then at best 
you'd have a symlink, at worst a dir with only one file inside. 

> the implication in supporting both hardfloat and softfloat simultaneously is 
> that you'd could have them both installed.  thus putting them both in /lib/ 
> doesn't make much sense if you're still going to need /libhf/ to hold 
> everything else.

That case has only any chance of realization in a multiarch environment such as 
Debian/Ubuntu. The rest won't be affected at all. And the dynamic linkers 
-different filename of course- are the only libs that will be in /lib straight, 
the rest will be in /lib/<triplet>. So there is no danger of any conflict, at 
least not with libraries.

Konstantinos Margaritis <konstantinos.margari...@linaro.org>

Reply via email to