Re: ELF dynamic loader name [was: sbrk(2) broken]

Peter Wemm wrote:
> While this doesn't count as an explicit vote against the rename, we can 
> solve the chroot problem easily.  I did this once already, but for some 
> reason never got around to committing it.
> 
> However, renaming ld-elf.so.1 is a bad idea in general.  Yes, it would 
> have been better to have had the arch name in there from the start, but 
> it doesn't.  It is unfortunate, but I feel that changing it will cause 
> far more pain across the board than it would solve for the specific case 
> of chrooting i386 binaries.  I don't think it is worth it.
> 
> There are a whole bunch of references to the ld-elf.so.1 name.  Not just 
> in our tree, but in external 3rd party code.  Even things like gdb 
> "know" how to handle ld-elf.so.1.  Getting those upstream folks to add 
> additional strcmp()'s for ld-elf-i386.so.1, ld-elf-amd64.so.1 etc will 
> be hard enough, and it will add another hurdle that minor platform 
> maintainers have to overcome.  ld-elf-mips-be-4Kc.so.1 anybody?  (ok, 
> that last one is a stretch)
> 
> Anyway, I'm not absolutely against it, but I think it will be a net loss 
> overall.  We'll have more pain than I think it is worth, especially 
> since the alternatives are much easier.

I see, what about moving it into /libexec/<arch>/? Is it better approach?

-Maxim