Re: Phone call (was Re: Armhf dynamic linker path)

[Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>]

On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>And here's the details as promised.
>>
>>I've started a wiki page at
>>
>>https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/LinkerPathCallApr2012
>>
>>with a strawman agenda for now, and a Doodle poll at
>>
>>http://www.doodle.com/93bitkqeb7auyxn7
>>
>>to see when the best time is for the call on Thursday/Friday. Please
>>fill in the times that work for you ASAP and I'll announce the result
>>during Wednesday. Ideally we'd like stakeholders from all the relevant
>>distros and the upstream toolchain developers to be there, able to
>>represent their groups and (importantly) able to make a decision here
>>on what we should do.
>>
>>Apologies for the short notice, but we need a decision quickly.
>
> And the best time turns out to be Friday at 15:00 UTC (16:00 BST,
> 11:00 EDT etc.). Of the 10 people who responded in the poll, the only
> person who can't make that time is Michael in .nz. Sorry, Michael.

All good.  My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
 * is similar to /lib/ld-x86-64.so.2
 * keeps the libraries and loader in the same directory
 * doesn't invent a new /libhf directory
 * is easier to implement in GLIBC
 * is architecture and ABI unique
 * requires less change for distros where the hard float libraries are
already in /lib

I'm happy to do the GLIBC and GCC implementation.

-- Michael