On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:32:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>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.
Aargh. Again, use of a standard triplet for arm hard-float was agreed
by all parties at the Plumbers' meeting last September. For exactly
this reason. Now it seems that a number of people have totally ignored
that consensus for the last six months.
>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
Precisely who in Redhat/Fedora land has the power to make decisions in
this area? We've been clearly wasting our time thus far trying to
negotiate agreements about the hard-float platform.
Steve McIntyre steve.mcint...@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs