On Wednesday 04 April 2012 22:48:34 Wookey wrote: > Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]: > > >>> 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. > > It isn't helpful to think about this as a 'multiarch' thing. It's > about having a unique linker path everyone uses for a particular ABI > so that binaries can be run on more than one distro. > > The use of a GNU triplet to distinguish the 'armhf' ABI linker path is > just a sensible way to do it (and it'll work for future arches/ABIs > too). That brings no multiarchness at all with it.
trying to paint the use of a triplet in the path as any other than multiarch is bunk. as Joseph explained in detail, there already is a standard in mainline tools. if you want to change the standard, then propose something consistently for everyone. backdooring it for 1 target is not the way. > > 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>. > > No-one can 'deal' with the fact that you can't have binaries of > different ABIs work in the same filesystem unless they have unique > linker paths. And if we want 3rd-party-shipped binaries to work on > (say, Redhat and Debian and Ubuntu and Fedora (which we do), those > distros need to be using the same linker path). > > So that requires a path that is unique across ABIs and common across > distros. everyone has already agreed that we should have a new unique ldso name for armv7/hardfloat. so you're not really stating anything new here. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
