On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:57AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2012 19:31:40 Adam Conrad wrote:
> > I realize that most people can't see past their own use case to understand
> > why a unique location for linkers is helpful, useful, and important for
>
lpful, and it's
blatantly ignoring technical arguments and hiding them behind some bizarre
inter-distro conspiracy theory.
Maybe the conspiracy theory is fun for you. I don't know. It's not for
me. We were told by GCC upstream that we needed distro consensus. We
got that over half a year ago. Now I'm told by distros that the patch
not being upstream is why they are backing out of said consensus. Fun.
Adam Conrad
eep consistent
with their other 64-bit ports, but where you put libraries is entirely
unrelated to where the linker lives. You could have all your libraries
in /root/.trash/ and if the linker lives in a canonical location and
can resolve that, that's fine. I will still (obviously, I think, from
my comments above) argue that the linker should live in a guaranteed
unique location. Overlap with other arches in /lib64 is certainly far
more likely than overlap in /libhf.
... Adam Conrad
