On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote: >> 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>. For some value of "mainline standard": https://wiki.linaro.org/RikuVoipio/LdSoTable Quite clear there has been no effort in naming except in the few cases "something" was hacked in to allow coinstall of 64bit binaries. The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf and armel binaries on the same systems is useful and 2) nobody proposed anything else. Riku _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
