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 :|