[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Adding loong architecture to dpkg


> I think loong64 (and potentially loong32) would be both fine.
We agree with the above point of view。

> dpkg architecture: aarch64 → arm64, x86_64 → amd64
We want the dpkg architecture to use loong64:
loongarch64 → loong64,loongarch32 → loong32

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Guillem Jover" <guillem@debian.org>
> 发送时间:2022-11-02 22:14:37 (星期三)
> 收件人: "Zhang Ning" <zhangn1985@outlook.com>
> 抄送: "桑猛" <sangmeng@loongson.cn>, debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, JiaLingZhang <zhangjialing@loongson.cn>, "王洪虎" <wanghonghu@loongson.cn>
> 主题: Re: Adding loong architecture to dpkg
> On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 18:27:17 +0800, Zhang Ning wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:04:21AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > In any case, the loong64 name has already been used by other
> > > distributions (Gentoo, ArchLinux, Slackware, etc.), so this is really
> > > not unusual.
> > I was misleaded by Gentoo Loongarch maintainer, he told me it is
> > loong64, but actually, it's loong.
> > Archlinux and Slackware are downstream ports, not upstreamed yet.
> > 
> > My question is, is it necessary to use same name for all distos?
> Not at all, to me those names are more a testament that other distros
> have rejected the loongarch name. There's never been a requirement to
> use the same name as either the GNU triplet or the names used in other
> distributions.
> The currently documented preference is to append the bitness to the
> arch name, which is something that tends to affect users, and I think
> it's better to have it be explicit. This is something we have done
> recently with newer ports (such as riscv64).
> See <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#new-arch>.
> > When Loongson releases 32bit loongarch, then loong32 can be its dpkg name,
> > if we select loong for 64bit. first come takes the shorter one.
> I think loong64 (and potentially loong32) would be both fine.
> For the endianness, which tends to be more esoteric, it makes sense to
> obviate it by default for the predominant or only endianness available.
> Thanks,
> Guillem

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: