* 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