ld.so path

[Aurelien Jarno]

Petr Salinger a écrit :
>>>>See also http://www.linuxbase.org/futures/ideas/multiarch/index.html
>>>>
>>>>What about /lib/ld-kfreebsd-i386.so.2 and /lib/ld-kfreebsd-amd64.so.2 ?
>>>
>>>Yes, that's the base of multi-arch. Currently bi-arch is implemented via 
>>> /lib and /lib64, but that's not suitable for us. Maybe we will have to 
>>>speak with the multi-arch people in Debian to make sure we use the same 
>>>standars. There was a presentation of it at Debconf5.
>>
>>Where are we on this?  x86_64-linux-gnu sets /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.X, so
>>by analogy we'd be /lib64/ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.X.
>>
>>Is that ok?  We need to take a decision on this before patches for x86_64
>>support can be sent upstream.
> 
> 
> I strongly prefer to put ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1 into /lib, not /lib64.
> 
> ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1 will be primary dynamic linker for amd64,
> all standard libraries will be in /lib, /usr/lib, ...
> 
> IMHO /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 is big mistake.
> amd64/i386 situation is far from sparc64/sparc or s390x/s390.
> amd64 is complete 64bit port, not only extension of primary 32bit port.
> 

Well you can have the linker in /lib64 and the librairies in /lib.

Note that in case of GNU/Linux, it is not a choice, but defined in the 
AMD64 ABI [1]. The linker could be /lib/ld64.so.1 or 
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.

Therefore I would say /lib64/ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.2 is better.

[1] http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi-0.96.pdf

-- 
   .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
  : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
  `. `'   aurel32 at debian.org         | aurelien at aurel32.net
    `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net