On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:55:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: 
> note: i don't care about /lib/ld-linux-hf.so.3 or /lib/ld-linux.so.4 or 
> /libhf/ld-linux.so.[34].  /lib/<triplet>/<ldso> is really the only one i 
> don't 
> think doesn't belong.

and I'm just saying that I dislike /libhf, I also think that just raising the 
version is a wrong solution.

> don't really know what you're talking about here.  other distros have no 
> problem with handling multilib.

multilib for softfloat/hardfloat on arm? I don't think so, even for other 
arches -it was already demonstrated that you cannot e.g. have powerpc e500v2 
and e600 installed concurrently, and anyway that's not the topic of the 
discussion here. Apart from multiarch there is no other solution to do that 
*for* arm, at least at the moment, because the two ABIs use exactly the same 
paths on a non-multiarch system. And I get back to the proposed solution /libhf 
-which is the multilib path you're referring to- and I'm saying that the topic 
here is for the linker path alone. In the hypothetical scenario that everyone 
agreed on /libhf for the linker path, but not for libraries -which would stay 
in /lib- , then we'd have a /libhf top directory with just one file, the 
linker. Or a symlink from /lib to /libhf or /lib/<triplet> to /libhf in 
Debian's case, but that defeats the purposes of having a new /libhf directory, 
doesn't it?

I hope I was clearer now.

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

Reply via email to