Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:00:42PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> What is the purpose of the underscore? In other words, what is the
>> advantage over arm-linux-gnueabihf? I worry that some tools may not
>> like it --- for example, package names like
>>
>> mlton-target-arm-linux-gnueabi_hf
>>
>> are not allowed. Which looks very much surmountable, but just in
>> case, it seems prudent to ask.
>>
>> Just to be clear, this is not an objection (both triplets look fine to
>> me). I ask in the hope of getting the rationale well documented.
>
> I think the underscore was originally proposed for multiarch triplets;
> Guillem sent a patch without underscore upstream. I've heard an
> independent suggestion to use an underscore from GCC upstream, so it
> seems underscore might well end up in this triplet.
>
> Note that the amd64 triplet already uses an underscore (in the CPU part
> though): x86_64-linux-gnu, so I don't think the presence of underscore
> should be a new technical issue introduced by armhf. It's probably up
> to the GCC upstream folks to decide on this.
(Just been reminded on IRC): also, in discussion with two of those gcc
folks in Cambridge (Ramana and Richard) and Wookey on Friday, we
sort-of agreed on a base architecture level for arm-linux-gnueabihf.
Although *technically* it's possible to use armhf on v5 and v6,
there's not a huge amount of point. So the right answer is to make
arm-linux-gnueabihf imply v7, with vfp3-d16.
(/me waits for somebody to come along and correct his faulty memory now...)
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Is there anybody out there?
Reply to: