On 2016-04-27 19:12, John Dulaney wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:04:38PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>
>Maybe that's something that CentOS have added (don't know, haven't
>looked), RHELSA doesn't support it that I'm aware of and they're
>definitely only 64K page size. The biggest change is in
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:04:38PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> >
> >Maybe that's something that CentOS have added (don't know, haven't
> >looked), RHELSA doesn't support it that I'm aware of and they're
> >definitely only 64K page size. The biggest change is in rpm and the
> >arch mappings there.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:17 PM, David Jones wrote:
> I am a little confused with the following, just tried
> Fedora-Minimal-armhfp-24-20160422.n.0 on a Utilite-pro
I believe there's issues with the utilite in general. The upstream
support is truly terrible so it's quite possible it doesn't work
I am a little confused with the following, just tried
Fedora-Minimal-armhfp-24-20160422.n.0 on a Utilite-pro
Using U-Boot SPL 2016.03 (Apr 09 2016 - 14:33:27)
Trying to boot from MMC
U-Boot 2016.03 (Apr 09 2016 - 14:33:27 +)
CPU: Freescale i.MX6Q rev1.2 at 792 MHz
Reset cause: POR
Board
On 2016-04-27 16:56, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
To further this piece, you would need to have code changes in rpm,
dnf,
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
>>>
>>> You can't, it's not a use case we support.
>>
>>
>>
>> To further this piece, you would need to have code changes in rpm, dnf,
>> yum,
>> packa
On 2016-04-27 16:38, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:37:35 PM CDT Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
To furt
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:37:35 PM CDT Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
>
> You can't, it's not a use case we support.
To further this piece, you would need to h
On 2016-04-27 14:45, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
Why not? All arm binaries can be runnable on aarch32 mode of aarch64
kernel.
Not exactly actually, it's possible to have aarch64/ARMv8 CPU
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
>> >>
>> >> You can't, it's not a use case we support.
>> >>
>> > Why not? All arm binaries can be runnable on aarch32 mode of aarch64
>> > kernel.
>>
>> Not exactly actually, it's possible to have aarc
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 22:31:09 +0900
Chanho Park wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Chanho Park > > wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 27,
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
>>> Why not? All arm binaries can be runnable on aarch32 mode of aarch64
>>> kernel.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly actually, it's possible to have aarch64/ARMv8 CPUs that
>> don'
Hi,
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Chanho Park > wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park > wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > I want to us
On 2016-04-27 14:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Chanho Park
wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Chanho Park wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
>>
>> You can't, it's not a us
On 2016-04-27 14:09, Chanho Park wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park
wrote:
Hi all,
I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
Why not? All arm
Hi Peter,
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park > wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
>
> You can't, it's not a use case we support.
>
> Why not? All arm binaries can be runnable
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Chanho Park wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
You can't, it's not a use case we support.
> When I ran the dnf command on the armhf image with aarch64 kernel, the
> dnf command was failed with below error.
>
> dn
Hi all,
I want to use the armhf fedora rootfs on the aarch64 bit kernel.
When I ran the dnf command on the armhf image with aarch64 kernel, the
dnf command was failed with below error.
dnf -v install mesa
cachedir: /var/cache/dnf
DNF version: 1.1.6
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-
OLD: Fedora-24-20160426.n.0
NEW: Fedora-24-20160427.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 2
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages:0.00 B
Size of
20 matches
Mail list logo
