On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 04-Oct-24 16:26, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I am aware that the amd64 port has decided to completely ignore > > standard methods of handling the multi-arch issues. However, most of > > the other changes are compatible as long as some constructs (e.g. > > rpath) are not used. The choice of dynamic loader is not one such. > > The ABI specifies: > > > > 5.2.1 Program Interpreter > > > > There is one valid program interpreter for programs conforming to the > > AMD64 ABI: > > /lib/ld64.so.1 > > However, Linux puts this in > > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > > > > Debian should not have a different ABI than the rest of the planet. > > If you want it to live in /lib, talk to other distributions about > > switching to /lib/ld64.so.1 instead. > > Thank you for your reply to my report. > > The '/lib64' directory is just ugly and I want to get rid of that > or at least minimize its use (and I think I am not alone here).
You're certainly not alone among the Debian amd64 team. I think you, as a group, are alone in the larger world. I find /lib64 a fairly elegant solution. There is a community list on which x86_64 ABI issues can be discussed. None of the Debian porters have ever come to talk about their objections to the layout there. If you seriously intend to change the ABI, then someone ought to have done that by now. > I think it is not a good decision to hard code the '/lib64' directory > into nearly every binary on the system, because this directory will > likely become deprecated or may even be dropped at a later time. > I do not want to wait for other distributions to switch to a reasonable > standard. Debian should go ahead here and choose a reasonable standard > from the beginning (but of course, it is not up to me to decide that). Sorry, but in the real world that's not how ABI problems get solved - only how they get created. -- Daniel Jacobowitz
