* Daniel P. Berrangé: > 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. But that's largely baked into the upstream defaults by now (unlike the Debian multi-arch paths). > 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 I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not cover all cases. Whatever we do, it should be upstream. Maybe convince RISC-V to adopt /usr/lib64. Or have the RISC-V folks implement automated detection of path layout in autotools, Meson etc., so that out of the box, both paths work. Thanks, Florian -- _______________________________________________ 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
