[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:40:11PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (BTW... if you want to run both armel and armhf under multiarch... which
> > package's libc gets to own ld.so? :P)
>  I understand ld.so can be wherever we want, since it's part of the
>  executables, but I understand you're asking which architecture gets to
>  own whatever /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is, since there's only one of them and
>  we want to preserve compatibility with non-Debian binaries, right?
>  On my amd64 system, /bin/rm points at /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for
>  an interpreter (*cough* /lib64) but on an armel system, it points at
>  /lib/ld-linux.so.3, and on i386 system /lib/ld-linux.so.2 so perhaps we
>  can expect 64-bits arches to have a suffix while 32-bits arches so that
>  one could leave ld-linux to 32-bits arches and use the suffix for
>  64-bits arches?  No idea whether there's a general rule for this

It's not a general rule. For example, 32-bit sparc is /lib/ld-linux.so.2
while 64-bit sparc is /lib64/ld-linux.so.2.

Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply to: