On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Lennart Sorensen <
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> debootstrap DOES chroot before running the binaries. --foreign is to
> allow you to extract packages on your x86 desktop, and then copy the
> chroot to another system and finish the debootstrap run there wit
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:29:05PM -0700, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I used the --foreign option because as far as I can tell, the armhf
> binaries can only run after I do a chroot. Obviously the kernel stay the
> same on each side of the chroot. I do the first stage debootstrap on the
> armel side o
Thank you for the response.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:17 PM, peter green wrote:
> Note that you don't actualy have to use --foreign in this case since your
> host kernel can run the binaries for the target.
I used the --foreign option because as far as I can tell, the armhf
binaries can only ru
Using the packages above and creating a local mini-repository I'm now
able to use debootstrap, along with some coaxing, to create a minimal
Debian filesystem based on my rebuilt packages. The first-stage
debootstrap (--foreign) is done under Debian armel and then with
chroot I then run the s
This is a follow up to my questions about creating an Raspberry Pi flavored
armhf port. Please let me know if I'm just causing noise here and my
questions should be directed to another mailing list.
Where I'm at now is that I have several hundred armhf packages rebuilt and
verified to be clean of
> If you identify the v7 instructions that are not in v6, you can use
> something like the attached, which I wrote to count the percentage of
> MaverickCrunch instructions in the binaries in a Debian package.
I can tell you the answer now.
If you're building in ARM mode there's approximately zero
On 27 March 2012 07:34, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I came across something that should help significantly with the problem of
> determining if there is ARMv7 code leakage into my recompiled armhf packages
> that should be ARMv6 pure.
>
> Basically, I can use the 'readelf -A' command to determine when
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Wookey wrote:
> The set of packages you install and the set of packages linked-against
> will be the same, except for static linking, and I beleive that to be
> very rare, quite possibly non-existent in a base install. So I don't
> think this issue meaningfully ch
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:04:41AM -0700, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I simply don't know one way or the other. When dealing with unknowns I
> tend to assume the worst, just to be safe. :-)
>
> Yes. I'm beginning to understand that. I've been reading the following
> document as I'm clearly going to n
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Wookey wrote:
> True - but is there any static linking going on in fact? There isn't
> much of it about these days (flex does it IIRC, and no doubt a few
> other bits of software for various reasons). I have often wondered how
> much 'old code' seeps through in a
+++ Mike Thompson [2012-03-23 00:24 -0700]:
>
> Thinking this through a bit more I realize that whenever I build a package
> that
> statically links against existing armhf libraries that the resulting binaries
> will contain both armv6 (newly compiled code for hte package) and armv7 code
> (anyth
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Mike Thompson [2012-03-22 10:50 -0700]:
> > My goal is that by time RPi hardware is shipping I hope to have enough
> RPi
> > compatible hard float packages built to create a minimal install using
> > debootstrap, install build-essential and per
+++ Mike Thompson [2012-03-22 10:50 -0700]:
>
> My goal is that by time RPi hardware is shipping I hope to have enough RPi
> compatible hard float packages built to create a minimal install using
> debootstrap, install build-essential and perhaps a smattering of other
> packages
> to demonstrat
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> For all intents and purposes, this *is* a new port. This can't just be
> done
> as a set of optimized libraries on top of armhf, because the baseline for
> the armhf port is ARMv7 so none of these packages are guaranteed to run on
> RPi, *i
+++ Mike Thompson [2012-03-07 09:32 -0800]:
> Wookey, thank you for the very detailed response.
> Debian is expecting Pi users, like all pre-v7 hardware
> owners, such as all the *plug devices, to use the armel port, in the
> same way that the 'offical' fedora distro is v5, softfp. If
+++ Steve Langasek [2012-03-07 14:28 -0800]:
> For all intents and purposes, this *is* a new port. This can't just be done
> as a set of optimized libraries on top of armhf, because the baseline for
> the armhf port is ARMv7 so none of these packages are guaranteed to run on
> RPi, *including ld.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:32:05AM -0800, Mike Thompson wrote:5~
> > The armhf ABI will work onthe RPi, but the packages
> > would need to be rebuilt to not use the extra v7 or VFP v3
> > instructions. That is a CPU optimisation, like rebuilding for i486
> > instead of i586, not a new ABI, and thus
At Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:39:43 +, Wookey wrote:
> If there is enough enthusiasm
Pardon my 2 cents from the peanut gallery. Considering that the
Raspberry Pi is currently selling at a rate of 700 per second (and
it's been on sale for a full week now), I would call that a mentally
kook-tastic amo
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Lennart Sorensen <
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> You can certainly run armel, armhf and armWhateverYouNameIt in chroots
> on an i.MX53 (I have helped with armel issues while running armhf using
> chroots and it works fine since the armhf kernel can run eve
> BTW my gcc man page has an armv6t2 -march= target, so I suspect there
> are some ARMv6 CPUs with Thumb-2.
You still can't run ARMv7 Thumb-2 code an an ARMv6t2 core. The same way you
can't run ARMv7 ARM code on an ARMv6 core. THe only ARMv6t2 implementation I
know of is the arm1156 (which I
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:28:44PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> *Debian*'s armhf is configured to use Thumb-2, but you could rebuild
> the packages with a toolchain defaulting to ARM mode and your binaries
> would be compatible with the Debian ones as long as both are built
> with interworking.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 09:32:05AM -0800, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I've been using the armel (and earlier ABI) on my NSLU2 (slug) for several
> years now. I actually never really understood much about the Debian port
> to ARM, other than it just worked well for me. My interest in the RPi has
> got
> With actual RPi hardware still being 6 to 8 weeks out, would a Freescale
> i.MX535 Quick Start board allow such benchmarking? I presume an armel
> install of Debian and compiling certain packages with VFP2 optimizations
> would be pretty straight forward. Is armhf in such a state that it would b
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Hmm I thought armhf did ARMv6, but no, it uses thumb-2 which apparently
> means ARMv7.
*Debian*'s armhf is configured to use Thumb-2, but you could rebuild
the packages with a toolchain defaulting to ARM mode and your binaries
would be compatible
Wookey, thank you for the very detailed response.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Wookey wrote:
> As you presumably know we already have 2 arm parts. The armhf arm
> v7+VFP3 (using FP registers in calling convention and thumb2
> instructions) and the armel v4t (using softfp FP emulation and only
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:13 AM, David Given wrote:
> Does Debian armhf still target ARMv7 and above? I can't find any
> definitive statement. I know that Ubuntu *does* target ARMv7+, which
> means that it won't work on the Pi (and Canonical have stated that they
> have no interest in supporting t
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 04:25:52PM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>hi,
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:46:13 +
>Wookey wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu:
>> * “armel” (v7, Thumb 2, EABI soft-float)
>> still going, will ship in Precise (12.04), maybe with LTS?
>> * “armhf” (v7, Thumb 2, EABI hard-float)
>>
hi,
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:46:13 +
Wookey wrote:
> Ubuntu:
> * “armel” (v7, Thumb 2, EABI soft-float)
> still going, will ship in Precise (12.04), maybe with LTS?
> * “armhf” (v7, Thumb 2, EABI hard-float)
> mostly there, minor issues remaining
> will ship in Precise unless
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 06:22:38PM -0800, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I am potentially interested in creating/maintaining a Debian port that
> would mirror the work being done in armhf, but with the port tuned to the
> specifics of the Raspberry Pi hardware which I believe is ARMv6+VFPv2. The
> goal wo
+++ Mike Thompson [2012-03-06 18:22 -0800]:
> I am potentially interested in creating/maintaining a Debian port that would
> mirror the work being done in armhf, but with the port tuned to the specifics
> of the Raspberry Pi hardware which I believe is ARMv6+VFPv2. The goal would
> be
> a Debian
+++ David Given [2012-03-07 11:13 +]:
> Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I am potentially interested in creating/maintaining a Debian port that
> > would mirror the work being done in armhf, but with the port tuned to
> > the specifics of the Raspberry Pi hardware which I believe is
> > ARMv6+VFPv2.
>
Mike Thompson wrote:
> I am potentially interested in creating/maintaining a Debian port that
> would mirror the work being done in armhf, but with the port tuned to
> the specifics of the Raspberry Pi hardware which I believe is
> ARMv6+VFPv2.
Does Debian armhf still target ARMv7 and above? I ca
I am potentially interested in creating/maintaining a Debian port that
would mirror the work being done in armhf, but with the port tuned to the
specifics of the Raspberry Pi hardware which I believe is ARMv6+VFPv2. The
goal would be a Debian distribution on the Raspberry Pi which would squeeze
th
33 matches
Mail list logo
