ld.so path

Petr Salinger Petr.Salinger at t-systems.cz
Fri Feb 24 20:27:48 UTC 2006


> Btw, I just discovered that 64bit kFreeBSD doesn't support running 32bit
> binaries at all.

No, at least FreeBSD 6.0 supports running 32-bit FreeBSD binaries.
I tried (one month ago) install/live disk 
of FreeBSD 6.0 under qemu, with mounted partition of kfreebsd-i386.

I had to use chroot, point /libexec/ld-elf32.so.1 to our /lib/ld-2.3.x.so 
or some similar change. 

After that (and after r1112) it partially worked, i.e. I started 
some programs, but the exit() syscall returned from kernel !?! :-(((
Detected by ktrace, I suspect qemu for this _exit() problem. 

Since I can't test it under live CPU and live disk, I stopped tests.

FYI: I have access to real amd64 machine, but the current 
partition table uses dos extended partition and FreeBSD 6.0 installer 
doesn't work with it, moreover, it destroyed it :-(((
The machine also has only unsupported forcedeth ethernet card. :-(

> So perhaps this discussion is useless, and we should just use the same 
> as on ia32 like FreeBSD does (ld.so.1 in our case).

No, even if FreeBSD32 emulation doesn't work for us just now correctly,
we should choose name unique between all (at least Debian) ports.

My impression is:

 -  we can agree on ld.so "file name" - ld-kfreebsd-x86-64.so.1.
 -  there are two variant for "dir name": "/lib" or "/lib64"

Is this impression correct ?

My opinion should be clear from previous mails :-) 
The reason for it is that I don't see any pros of /lib64,
but I see cons of /lib64.

Petr




More information about the Glibc-bsd-devel mailing list