On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use > the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V > recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and > various upstream projects follow that. > > I think we should follow upstream, so that it's possible to use Fedora > to do upstream development without patching the sources, or elaborate > Fedora-specific configure invocations. I'm not convinced that using /usr/lib64/lp64d would lead to *less* patching. Apps targetting Fedora are long used to having to adapt from using /usr/lib to /usr/lib64. Introducing the use of /usr/lib64/lp64d instead, just for RiscV, feels likely to break expectations resulting in apps which build fine on all Fedora arches except for RiscV > The other reasons is to > future-proof the Fedora port against the arrival of an alternative ABI > that is not fully backwards-compatible (the same reason why the official > RISC-V documentation requires use of these paths). This implies we would have to have two different RiscV ABIs built for every binary, and made parallel installable, as opposed to completely distinct Fedora arch targets. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
