On Thu, 06 May 2021 13:30:45 PDT (-0700), dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Haven't I told you using two-level libdirs is stupid? So yes,
please do that and let us be happy once again.
That said, where does lp64gc land? Or isnon-multilib
one-or-the-other the goal?
It would be non-multilib one-or-the-other then for us.
The main relevant combination is rv64gc/lp64d, which is arguably what
a linux machine "should have".
(I could also imagine to keep rv64imac/lp64 profile and stages (also
using lib64), these would have to mask stuff like rust then though.)
(Unless Palmer et al come up with a fix for the libdirs on the
upstream side of things. Already e.g. libdir=lib64-lp64d would be much
easier to handle I suspect.)
TBH: I'm not really going to come up with something better beacuse I
came up with the current (and likely broken) scheme and I still don't
fully understand why. So if you have suggestions as to something that
would actually work that would be great, as otherwise I'm just going to
come up with something broken again ;)
Is the constraint just "no sub-directories for libraries"? IIRC we did
that because someone else was already doing it and it seems to be less
of a FHS break that adding a bunch of first-level directories. I can
totally buy I was just wrong, though. If that's all we need then this
shouldn't be that hard to fix upstream, of course it'll take a while to
get everyone updated but at least we'll have a way to steer everyone.
