Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant
How much extra work is it for example to append something to the package version? For instance take a backport or ubuntu package of foobar-1.0 which may end up as foobar-1.0ubuntu5 or foobar-1.0~dsfg9 or so?
Hardfloat packages can be built from identical sources in nearly all instances but for the hardfp case (which you could detect with objdump or even file to find the elf abi variant of some generated object?) you just have it be foobar-1.0~hardfp or so? I'm really not up to speed on what the extra gilded etc mean if anything so I am not sure it is a valid solution, but it's a thought.
What about using something like armel~hardfp as the flavor autoappended and patch dpkg to resolve it properly?
Martins qualm is especially relevant re the detecting arch/flavor based on a compiler tuple which could be identical for both. What it needs is for the packaging tools to know the difference, not so much rely entirely on the packages themselves which it is only relevant to know that it is a package which is good for arm processors (x86 microcode update daemon need not apply for example)
On Jul 8, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Martin Guy <email@example.com> wrote: