Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:

On 28.09.2011, at 12:50, Steve McIntyre wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 06:31:51PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 27.09.2011, at 18:19, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> 
>>> Out of curiosity, what are you using as a triplet for your hard-float
>>> port? The discussion at LPC focussed on this to some extent:
>>> 
>>> http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2011-September/000054.html
>> 
>> 
>> Ah, nice. I didn't find that mail before. I only found one where the
>> discussion on the target names "armhf" and "armv7hl" was raised, so
>> we named the target "armv7hl" to be compatible with Fedora and Meego.
> 
> Fair enough, the internal nam
 e
doesn't matter much. :-)

Well, it actually does matter because rpm compares it with the output of uname to check if the architecture is compatible. However, if we call it "armv7hl", we are incompatible with armv7l which logically would be missing VFP capabilities. Now, uname unfortunately only emits armv7l (see arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S), so we never know if our host is capable of running armv7hl code.

So we can either build our packages against armv7hl, breaking the assumption that we can find the machine type from uname (basically adding a hack that armv7hl is compatible to armv7l).

Or we could build our packages against armv7l which is what the kernel emits (good!), but would diverge from how Fedora and Meego call their packages.

We're currently not sure which path would be the better one to walk down on. What's the rationale from the other distro folks here?


Alex



cross-distro mailing lis
 t
cross-distro@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro