* 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