On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:56:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipioriku.voipio@linaro.org wrote:
On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmoredennis@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.
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.
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>.
in the last patch it seemed like only the path differed, but the ldso was still named "ld-linux.so.3",
That's correct.
but maybe i misread it and/or confused it with an old patch. the new HF ldso will always be "ld-linux.so.3" while the old who-knows-what-ABI-it-actually-is name will be "ld-linux.so.2" ?
The intent of this patch is to continue to use /lib/ld-linux.so.3[*] for ARM EABI (aka "softfloat"/armel), but switch to /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ld-linux.so.3 for the hard float variant. This allows for concurrent support of both ABIs on the same install.
/lib/ld-linux.so.2, as I understand it, is the legacy ABI (OABI). My updated patch preserves this support.
-dann
[*] The /lib/ld-linux.so.3 bit isn't visible in my latest patch because it is specified in a different file.
I am a bit surprised that this comes up again, and I really would like to settle this within the next two weeks. Note that Ubuntu 11.10 already did ship with this ldso name based on these discussions. Jon, afaicr I did ask this very same question (if the ldso name in a multiarch location would be acceptable) at Linaro Connect in August 2011 in Cambridge, and afaicr you didn't object to this path.
i've never attended a conference in Cambridge (US or UK). maybe you're remembering something else ? -mike
cross-distro mailing list cross-distro@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro