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