On 11 Aug 2015 10:45, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 8/11/15 10:33 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote: > >> I think ppc64le would become popular, > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64. > >> > >> 1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort. > >> 2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap, wrong, > >> and PCish. 3. Other distrbutions like Ubuntu, Redhat and SUSE > >> already support little endian in powerpc. > > > > In terms of the codepaths, what's different between ppc64le vs ppc64, > > and ppc64le vs amd64 ? Obviously kernels will differ, but in terms of > > C/C++/other compiled source code what needs to change? > > > > If all this needs is its own profile for a CHOST/CBUILD specification > > and it can leverage an existing keyword, then this should be rather > > simple to implement yes? > > We would leverage this on ppc64 keyword. It is a bit dangerous to claim > that a pkg stable on ppc64 is stable on ppc64le, but we would live with > that risk. Ideally you should test on both. The situation is analogous > to mips where there are many different ISAs and both be and le. It is > one of the reasons mips is hard to move back into stable. But having > stable keywords is really nice when it comes to building and maintaining > stages and keeping base pkgs versions in sync with the other arches. > For this reason, I would even been in favor of restoring stable mips > with the understanding that "stable" carries something of a risk when > crossing the be/le boundry, or the mips I vs mips III, or 32 vs 64, etc.
yes, we should just re-use the existing KEYWORDS and control the endian differences via profiles. it's how other arches (mips, ppc, arm, arm64) are handled currently. note: people have already built Gentoo for ppc little endian, but that tends to only be used in embedded setups, so the builds don't get published like other arches as stages. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
