On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:01:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Tuesday 10 April 2012 06:42:04 Steve McIntyre wrote: >> We understand that not everybody may want or see the need for this for >> themselves. We *really* get that. But we want it to be possible for >> *us* to do it, and an ultra-important part of that is to have unique >> loader paths wherever possible. Hence the discussion over the location >> for the arm hard-float linker. We've built our systems using the >> multi-arch path as that worked well for us and doesn't hurt anybody >> else. There are problems with some of the other options here: >> >> * /lib/ld-linux.so.3 > >no one suggested this
It's the current default. >> * /libhf/ld-linux.so.3 >> - it could readily clash with a future hard-float platform; look >> how /lib64/* could clash with amd64/ARMv8/ppc64/sparc64 all >> populating it in the near future >> >> * /lib/ld-linux-hf.so.3 >> - similar problem > >so you're saying Debian would never accept any ldso path for any arch on the >future possibility that it could collide with another target ? that's a bit >unreasonable. We're not saying "never", but we would rather avoid collisions if avoidable. >> * /lib/ld-linux-$triplet.so.3 >> - could work fine, so long as we can agree on triplets > >kind of a waste of space, and the definition of "triplet" is vague, and in >your >example here, the word "linux" uselessly appears twice. We *have* had agreement on the triplet here: arm-linux-gnueabihf. Yes, "linux" is used twice here. Apologies. >once the duplicate "linux" word is fixed, i wouldn't fight this. Thanks. \o/ Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcint...@linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
