On Sunday, August 07, 2011 07:50:42 Raúl Porcel wrote:
> The problem is that during the history of the ARM architecture(according
> to the wikipedia, the architecture was introduced back in 1981) there
> has been some subarchitectures(the most available are armv4, armv4t,
> armv5t, armv6j and armv7
On Saturday, August 13, 2011 01:41:54 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> On 7 August 2011 17:20, Raúl Porcel wrote:
> > With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on
> > arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports
> > it.
>
> I think this makes sense. What
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 01:50:42PM +0200, Raúl Porcel wrote:
>> With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on
>> arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports it.
> I suggest you go and l
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 01:50:42PM +0200, Raúl Porcel wrote:
> With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on
> arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports it.
I suggest you go and look at the solution that was in place for MIPS
subarches as well
On 7 August 2011 17:20, Raúl Porcel wrote:
[...]
> With subprofiles we could keyword such packages, mask them globally on
> arm and unmask it on the subprofile of the subarchitecture that supports it.
I think this makes sense. What would the policy be on initial keywords
if upstream doesn't expli
Hi,
The other day Markus(maekke) found an issue i encountered two years ago.
An app supports only a subarchitecture of the ARM architecture.
For those that don't know the ARM architecture, its an architecture
which is mostly used on embedded and/or mobile devices(cell phones,
mostly), also there'
