On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:57AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2012 19:31:40 Adam Conrad wrote:
> > I realize that most people can't see past their own use case to understand
> > why a unique location for linkers is helpful, useful, and important for
> > some other people's use cases, but you either didn't read or chose to
> > ignore why using multilib paths just plain doesn't scale past a single
> > base architecture, and why that's a problem for people who aren't you.
> and as already stated, the proposed paths here, free of multiarch subpaths,
> satisfy the requirements that you've put forth
Like I said, then, you didn't actually read or understand why proposing
multilib paths doesn't work. You realize conceptually, I hope, that
there's no guarantee of uniqueness in lib/lib64/lib32/libsf/libhf once
you cross the base CPU architecture boundary, right?
Sure, I said that /libhf/ld-linux.so.3 would *accidentally* work for
us right now, due to sheer luck, and you're running with that as saying
that we clearly have no problem here worth solving. When the next
architecture clashes with linkers on another (hint: it almost certainly
will), do we get to argue about this all over again in six months,
instead of codifying a new and saner practice now?
... Adam Conrad