* Andrea Bolognani: > 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). > > I just checked in a Debian riscv64 chroot and they don't seem to > follow this recommendation: > > # cat /etc/ld.so.conf.d/riscv64-linux-gnu.conf > /usr/local/lib/riscv64-linux-gnu > /lib/riscv64-linux-gnu > /usr/lib/riscv64-linux-gnu > > This matches what Debian does on all architectures, that is, install > libraries under fully arch-qualified paths. If Debian doesn't stray > from its usual practices for RISC-V, I'm not convinced that Fedora > needs to either. Debian is really not a good example here because they have not upstreamed their path layout. I really don't think it's a good idea to clutter dozens of spec files with changes for what's arguably just a toy architecture today, with plenty of CPU-incompatible changes still coming. 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
