Re: Re: Adding loong architecture to dpkg
Hi:
Thanks.
We will read your reply carefully and we will also discuss it internally.
> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Guillem Jover" <guillem@debian.org>
> 发送时间:2022-11-02 18:04:21 (星期三)
> 收件人: "桑猛" <sangmeng@loongson.cn>
> 抄送: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, JiaLingZhang <zhangjialing@loongson.cn>, "王洪虎" <wanghonghu@loongson.cn>, zhangn1985@outlook.com
> 主题: Re: Adding loong architecture to dpkg
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 2022-11-01 at 19:45:11 +0800, 桑猛 wrote:
> > > We hope that the arch name can use loongarch64, mainly based on the
> > > following considerations:
> > > 1. The current upstream compilers gcc, llvm, etc. use loongarch64.
>
> That's part of the GNU triplet name, which is related but has never
> needed to match the dpkg architecture.
>
> > > 2. The current upstream kernel uses loongarch64.
>
> Same here.
>
> > > 3. At present, there is no special convention for the length of the
> > architecture name. If loong64 is used, it is easier to be confused
> > with the previously used loongarch64.
>
> Well, length might be one aspect of this, as it ends up in filenames,
> and metadata, etc, but the «arch» part is just redundant and wasteful
> and gives no meaningful information. We had a similar situation with
> aarch64 which was a terrible name, which we named as arm64 for the
> dpkg architecture.
>
> > The following code in https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/dpkg-architecture.1.html:
> >
> > DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE)
> > DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
> > […]
> > ifeq ($(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE), $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE))
> > confflags += --build=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
> > else
> > confflags += --build=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) \
> > --host=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
> > endif
> > […]
> > ./configure $(confflags)
> >
> > If you use loong64, it will be contrary to the loongarch64 logo used by
> > gcc, so we still want to use loongarch64 as the arch name。
>
> This is not a very compelling argument TBH, many dpkg architectures,
> more so the ones most used, have GNU triplet CPU names not matching at
> all the dpkg architecture: aarch64 → arm64, x86_64 → amd64. We also
> have stuff like powerpc64le → ppc64el (which changes both CPU name and
> endianness annotation).
>
> Given that any such architecture will have to be bootstrapped from
> zero for Debian, reusing an existing name is also not a very
> compelling argument. If in addition, as Zhang Ning mentions, those
> pre-existing architectures are also not even binary compatible, then
> that's even a stronger argument against even considering reusing it at
> all.
>
> In any case, the loong64 name has already been used by other
> distributions (Gentoo, ArchLinux, Slackware, etc.), so this is really
> not unusual.
>
> Thanks,
> Guillem
本邮件及其附件含有龙芯中科的商业秘密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制或散发）本邮件及其附件中的信息。如果您错收本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件。
This email and its attachments contain confidential information from Loongson Technology , which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it.
Reply to: