This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Multiarch interpreter names for traditional architectures
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <javier--CbphpPOVok9WFxGWvC7CbkqlsxDZyT at jasp dot net>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:34:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: Multiarch interpreter names for traditional architectures
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20180209140225.GC2428@aurel32.net> <email@example.com>
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dv 09 de 02 de 2018 a les 15:02 +0100, Aurelien Jarno va escriure:
> > The notion of "multiarch interpreter" doesn't exist.
> It does exist, but you do not accept it. You are now denying the
> official support that exists in Debian.
> Use /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 as the program
> interpreter and the program will work perfectly in Debian and
Doing so is just as incorrect as using /lib64/ld-2.27.so as the
interpreter name. The fact that any number of file names happen to
resolve to the same file as the interpreter does not make them proper
names to use for it - only one name is correct under the ABI, and it's not
proper to create inherently distribution-specific binaries rather than
binaries that would work on any distribution with new-enough libc.
I think your present advocacy is an effective argument *against* any
additions to multiarch support in the GNU toolchain.
Joseph S. Myers