On Thursday 12 April 2012 02:05:23 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> > All good.  My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
>
> The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> with all the other architectures.

i think the idea was that no one is looking to do multilib here.  so we won't 
have softfloat in /lib/ and hardfloat in /libhf/.  we're just changing the ldso 
to reflect a change in the ABI.

you could also make this argument for EABI and OABI -- the EABI ldso should 
not be in /lib/.  but since we've got OABI and EABI both in /lib/ and people 
are happy with that, as well as the hardfloat ldso in /lib/, there's no need 
for a sep /libhf/.

> I'm fine with arm and hf (resp. hfp) being mentioned in the name of
> the dynamic linker, but IMNSHO having there gnu and eabi strings
> is an overkill - why mention gnu there, when all the other
> architectures which also have GNU libc dynamic linkers don't?  That
> part is implicit.  And, EABI is implied by so.3, softfp dynamic linker
> for EABI is /lib/ld-linux.so.3 while softfp dynamic linker for the old
> ABI is /lib/ld-linux.so.2.

i have no opinion either way here.  uClibc has already opted to name things 
with "-uClibc-" in them, so we're clear of collisions there.
-mike