Re: [Rpm-maint] AArch64 support
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 17:14 +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:14:54AM -0500, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 12:44 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late response, this has gotten buried in the rather
> > > unusual flood of mail and patches of late...
> > >
> > > On 01/29/2013 10:36 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > > Here is a patch which adds support for AArch64 architecture. This is
> > > > just basic support and further support (i.e. auxv parsing) may be
> > > > desired.
> > > > It is pretty straightforward except for the hunk in installplatform
> > > > which
> > > > sets LIB=${LIB}64. The existing test does this for linux and CANONCOLOR
> > > > 3.
> > > > Aarch64 is CANONCOLOR 2, but still wants to use lib64 for the libdir.
> > >
> > > Hmm, aarch64 is not a "multilib architecture"? Or is it just to keep
> > > things simple by not allowing multilib despite the hardware being
> > > capable of it? (I'm mostly just curious, but also related to the libdir
> > > thing)
> >
> > Honestly, I'm looking at it from a Fedora perspective where the decision
> > was made to not support multilib for AArch64. AArch64 h/w may be able to
> > support 32-bit armv8 (AArch32) execution, so non-Fedora folk may have
> > different opinions about multilib.
>
> But isn't it enough to don't include aarch32 in the arch_compat list?
> Why also mess with canoncolor?
The patch I posted was mostly the result of cloning ia64 bits because
ia64 was 64-bit only even though it could support ia32. But leaving that
aside, let's say we use canoncolor=3 for aarch64. It doesn't look like
arch_compat would help in excluding aarch32. Maybe _transaction_color?
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] AArch64 support
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:14:54AM -0500, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 12:44 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for the late response, this has gotten buried in the rather
> > unusual flood of mail and patches of late...
> >
> > On 01/29/2013 10:36 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > Here is a patch which adds support for AArch64 architecture. This is
> > > just basic support and further support (i.e. auxv parsing) may be desired.
> > > It is pretty straightforward except for the hunk in installplatform which
> > > sets LIB=${LIB}64. The existing test does this for linux and CANONCOLOR 3.
> > > Aarch64 is CANONCOLOR 2, but still wants to use lib64 for the libdir.
> >
> > Hmm, aarch64 is not a "multilib architecture"? Or is it just to keep
> > things simple by not allowing multilib despite the hardware being
> > capable of it? (I'm mostly just curious, but also related to the libdir
> > thing)
>
> Honestly, I'm looking at it from a Fedora perspective where the decision
> was made to not support multilib for AArch64. AArch64 h/w may be able to
> support 32-bit armv8 (AArch32) execution, so non-Fedora folk may have
> different opinions about multilib.
But isn't it enough to don't include aarch32 in the arch_compat list?
Why also mess with canoncolor?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] AArch64 support
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 12:44 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the late response, this has gotten buried in the rather
> unusual flood of mail and patches of late...
>
> On 01/29/2013 10:36 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> > Here is a patch which adds support for AArch64 architecture. This is
> > just basic support and further support (i.e. auxv parsing) may be desired.
> > It is pretty straightforward except for the hunk in installplatform which
> > sets LIB=${LIB}64. The existing test does this for linux and CANONCOLOR 3.
> > Aarch64 is CANONCOLOR 2, but still wants to use lib64 for the libdir.
>
> Hmm, aarch64 is not a "multilib architecture"? Or is it just to keep
> things simple by not allowing multilib despite the hardware being
> capable of it? (I'm mostly just curious, but also related to the libdir
> thing)
Honestly, I'm looking at it from a Fedora perspective where the decision
was made to not support multilib for AArch64. AArch64 h/w may be able to
support 32-bit armv8 (AArch32) execution, so non-Fedora folk may have
different opinions about multilib.
--Mark
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] FSM hooks for rpm plugin
Hi, >Hi, sorry about the delay... the recent patch-flood on rpm-maint caught me by >surprise :) Patch flood is always good, total silence is much worse :) >I've cleaned it up somewhat now, for example the early return was just plain >wrong as it would've leaked resources all over the place. But then it also >was a case that could never be reached at all... >The code still looks suspicious in many places and wants further inspection >and sanitizing but achieving symmetrical behavior for the hooks might >actually be possible now. At least its *closer* to that target if not there >yet :) I think it looks much better now and integrating hooks to it is a pleasure. I am attaching the new version. Hope I didn't miss any strange case, but it looked very easy now after your change! Best Regards, Elena. 0001-Adding-FSM-file-hooks.patch Description: Binary data smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
