ld.so path

Robert Millan rmh at aybabtu.com
Sat Feb 25 09:09:53 UTC 2006

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:27:48PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > 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.

Ah, I haven't tried with 6.0.

> 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. :-(

It can be used with "nve" (it's one of the non-free drivers we removed from
stock kernels).

> > 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 ?

Yes.  As for /lib64 I tend to agree with you.  We don't have only two-side
32/64 options, but also linux32/linux64 ones, so I think we should go for
something flexible like /usr/<cpu>-<kernel>/ (I think this is the multiarch

Robert Millan

More information about the Glibc-bsd-devel mailing list