On Wednesday 11 April 2012 03:37:56 Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:01:47 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > one of the downsides of traveling down a path and upstreaming as an after > > thought > > You didn't really follow arm hardfloat progress in the past 2 years, did > you (if you did you'd already be aware of attempts to get this thing > upstreamed for more than a year).
i've only started following arm again as my last job (of 5+ years) was largely Blackfin related > Honestly, I'm curious, are you speaking your personal opinion or on behalf > of Gentoo? If the former then consider that we're trying to get consensus > amongst distros not people, it's impossible to make everyone happy, but > we'd be content to get distro people to agree on a standard. considering i did the Gentoo/ARM port ~8 years ago and maintain the toolchain on Gentoo for all arches, i have a fairly big incentive to keep things clean. > proposing it. So, I guess something like: > > /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabhif.so.3 > > or using the ABI name: > > /lib/ld-linux-aapcs-vfp.so.3 > > are the most likely candidates to be agreed by most distros, at least as I > see it. i can let the fine wording of the tuple in the filename be hammered out by others. if we don't care about multilib, then /lib/ is fine, and as long is it isn't crowed by subdir-cruft (i.e. /lib/<tuple>/), then i'm happy. side note: you really need to fix your mailer. the lack of proper wrapping is obnoxious. -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
