On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:18:51 +0300
Konstantinos Margaritis <konstantinos.margari...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:36:07 +0200
> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > We really want consistency about the dynamic linker names etc.
> > across different targets and sneaking silently multiarch paths on
> > one architecture would make it inconsistent with all the others.
> > So, please just use /libhf/ld-linux.so.3.
> I personally find /libhf extremely ugly. If having a second path is a
> problem, how about using the triplet in the filename? Like:
> Unique per arch and not multiarched. And AFAIK, Linux can handle long
> filenames just fine...
every distro uses a unique triplet, by putting the triplet in there you
then need to get all distros to change to using the same triplets. I
personally prefer /libhfp rather than /libhf but I am ok with using
either. Any change from /lib would need us to do a mass rebuild.
because while not 100% needed I would rather keep libraries with the
linker. the changes to rpm to support it would be somewhat minimal. we
have stated in Fedora though that we have no intention to support mixing
hfp and sfp on the same system. we really do need to ensure consensus
for arm64 which I think should be /lib64 for 64 bit arch consistency.