Riku Voipio wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 03:40:40AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:|update: since dpkg in etch, gnueabi-arm is pretty much the only choice.Someone knows what does this mean?In older dpkg you could just define any "gcc -dumpmachine <-> dpkg-architecture" mapping in archtable.dpkg-architecture in dpkg 1.13 returns "os-cpu", where os and arch aregrabbed from ostable and cputable.|Suggested names for the new port. | | gnueabi-arm (long)Long and the dash ... =)That's what kfreebsd-i386, hurd-i386 etc have.
The difference being that those have OS-CPU scheme. gnueabi-arm seems to be ABI-CPU scheme.
As soon as we have the name I can add it to dpkg ...You are stuch with eabi-arm or gnueabi arm unless you are going to change the behaviour of dpkg-architecture while you are it :)
Why can't we just standardize on a single scheme and just implement that in dpkg-architecture? I've already had to change it for arm-softfloat and arm-vfp...My preference would be (OS-)CPU(-LIBC)(-ABI). The CPU might contain additional
feature specs such as arm-softfloat or arm-vfp, allowing important ARM combinations (arm, arm-softfloat, arm-uclibc, arm-gnuabi) as well as stuff like hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-i386-uclibc. That would requirea list of known LIBC's as well as a list of known ABI's in addition of the list
known OS's and a list of known CPU's.