Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 06:57:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> While scanning the libc-alpha list recently I read [M] that arm64ilp32
> was never upstreamed in Linux nor glibc? If so, I think there's little
> point in carrying the arch definitions in dpkg, and I guess that would
> not make the cut if requested now (for reference this was requested in
> bug #824742). Does anyone know whether it was ever used or it is being
> used even if privately/internally somewhere? I'd think that could be a
> good argument to make an exception, and keep this for a while still. I
> see no usage of this arch in Debian Sources files for example, so it'd
> seem safe to remove the arch definition in the Debian context.
>
> [M] <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-November/152521.html>
>
> For armeb, I assume it was properly upstreamed at the time, and it was
> actually used, even if it's currently not in use (like arm) I see tons
> of references in Sources files, and thus removing the arch definitions
> for either of these would not be safe right now I think.
armeb definitely was used in systems.
Certainly everything I could find about arm64ilp32 seems to indicate it
was experimental and support has been deleted from gcc and libc quite
a long time ago at least as far as I can tell. I sure can't find the
code in the kernel anymore unless it is well hidden.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: