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. 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). Currently /usr/lib64/lp64d is a symlink to /usr/lib64: $ ls -ld /usr/lib64/lp64d lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1 Jan 16 00:00 /usr/lib64/lp64d -> . (link is created in the glibc package). Seems to be the best of both worlds? TBH I'm not convinced that /usr/lib64/lp64d is a good idea, or any major difference like this from other architectures, or that there will be other ABIs that will have to be parallel installable. (We might, I suppose, change the ABI in future, but then we'd have to recompile everything, same as we'd do on any other architecture.) Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html -- _______________________________________________ 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
