Bug 1255729 - ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 is shipped in both /lib and /lib64 directories
Summary: ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 is shipped in both /lib and /lib64 directories
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc
Version: rawhide
Hardware: aarch64
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: glibc team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: Tracking
Depends On:
Blocks: ARMTracker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-08-21 12:07 UTC by Marcin Juszkiewicz
Modified: 2017-08-06 19:14 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Marcin Juszkiewicz 2015-08-21 12:07:19 UTC
Description of problem:

While checking why pax-utils fails to build on AArch64 I noticed that we have ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 in both /lib64 and /lib while on x86-64 we only have /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 file.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

2.22.90-2

How reproducible:

always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. ls -l /lib*/ld-*so*

Actual results:

14:01 hrw@pinkiepie-rawhide$ ll /lib*/ld-*so*
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 230600 08-17 18:04 /lib64/ld-2.22.90.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     13 08-17 17:59 /lib64/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 -> ld-2.22.90.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     22 08-17 17:59 /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 -> ../lib64/ld-2.22.90.so

Expected results:

14:01 hrw@pinkiepie-rawhide$ ll /lib*/ld-*so*
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 230600 08-17 18:04 /lib64/ld-2.22.90.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     13 08-17 17:59 /lib64/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 -> ld-2.22.90.so

Additional info:

14:03 <@pbrobinson> I see it on F-21 though too

Comment 1 Marcin Juszkiewicz 2015-11-30 10:48:50 UTC
Just to note: pax-utils 1.1.4 builds fine.

Comment 2 Jan Kurik 2016-02-24 13:39:15 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle.
Changing version to '24'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase

Comment 3 Peter Robinson 2016-08-21 02:22:16 UTC
Carlos any need for both?

Comment 4 Peter Robinson 2016-11-20 13:35:19 UTC
Still an issue in F-25

$ ls -l /lib*/ld-*so*
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 230160 Aug 18 17:10 /lib64/ld-2.24.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     10 Aug 18 17:05 /lib64/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 -> ld-2.24.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root     19 Aug 18 17:05 /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 -> ../lib64/ld-2.24.so

Comment 5 Carlos O'Donell 2016-12-05 13:33:15 UTC
We do not need the /lib/ link to ld.so. I don't know the history of it's presence, but I would think that after the mass rebuilds we've done it should not be needed any more by the distribution. Worse is that it will likely conflict with any future ILP32 ports currently being developed so we should remove it.

Comment 6 Peter Robinson 2017-08-06 19:14:56 UTC
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #5)
> We do not need the /lib/ link to ld.so. I don't know the history of it's
> presence, but I would think that after the mass rebuilds we've done it
> should not be needed any more by the distribution. Worse is that it will
> likely conflict with any future ILP32 ports currently being developed so we
> should remove it.

Status? Can this go in F-27, there's been two mass rebuilds since.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.