On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote: >> On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio<riku.voi...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore<den...@gilmore.net.au> wrote: >>>>> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such >>>>> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good >>>>> place. the wider community needs to be engaged for greatest acceptance. >>>>> otherwise then if falls into the vacuum of those attending the events. >>>>> Like I said its not that it could never happen just that its not been >>>>> discussed at all. so requesting that distros adopt it is a bit harsh >>>>> and unrealistic. >>>> >>>> At Linaro conference the need for changing linker path was agreed on, >>>> as well as the need to get a wide community agreement on it. To do the >>>> latter, an ARM minisummit was organized on at Plumbers 2011 [1]. >>>> Invites to wide range communities and distributions were sent, and for >>>> most someone attended. For the people not able to join physically, a >>>> call-in line was organized (I was on the call for example). With the >>>> expectation that people who attended in face or on call would convey >>>> the message back to their own communities. This didn't seemingly >>>> happen for everyone it seems. >>> >>> >>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone >>> can start off on the same page with a sane path. i don't think >>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that debian is deploying >>> makes sense though. this seems like a fairly behind-the-back maneuver >>> in terms of slipping it into mainline. >> >> >> Right. For clarification, we (Fedora) have no plans to do multi-arch >> (though I know many of us are personally interested in the idea). That >> doesn't mean we can't have a platform specific linker path change. > > yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso name in > a multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else needs to be in this > location.
while true, it seems like /lib/<ldso> vs /lib/<multiarch>/<ldso> needs to be handled by the multiarch people regardless (for historical support), while non-multiarch peeps never have /lib/xxx/ subdirs. i know it's a bit of bike shedding, but if the mainline standard is /lib/<ldso> and multiarch peeps have to deal with that already, it'd make more sense to stick with /lib/<ldso>. in the last patch it seemed like only the path differed, but the ldso was still named "ld-linux.so.3", but maybe i misread it and/or confused it with an old patch. the new HF ldso will always be "ld-linux.so.3" while the old who-knows-what-ABI-it-actually-is name will be "ld-linux.so.2" ? > I am a bit surprised that this comes up again, and I really would > like to settle this within the next two weeks. Note that Ubuntu 11.10 > already did ship with this ldso name based on these discussions. Jon, > afaicr I did ask this very same question (if the ldso name in a multiarch > location would be acceptable) at Linaro Connect in August 2011 in Cambridge, > and afaicr you didn't object to this path. i've never attended a conference in Cambridge (US or UK). maybe you're remembering something else ? -mike _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
