On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio riku.voipio@linaro.org wrote:
On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore dennis@gilmore.net.au wrote:
Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good place. the wider community needs to be engaged for greatest acceptance. otherwise then if falls into the vacuum of those attending the events. Like I said its not that it could never happen just that its not been discussed at all. so requesting that distros adopt it is a bit harsh and unrealistic.
At Linaro conference the need for changing linker path was agreed on, as well as the need to get a wide community agreement on it. To do the latter, an ARM minisummit was organized on at Plumbers 2011 [1]. Invites to wide range communities and distributions were sent, and for most someone attended. For the people not able to join physically, a call-in line was organized (I was on the call for example). With the expectation that people who attended in face or on call would convey the message back to their own communities. This didn't seemingly happen for everyone it seems.
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.
Again, AArch64 needs to be perfection from day 1. There will be no changing of linker paths or other nonsense after we ship something.
Jon.