History repeats itself with ARM architectures ...
At one point in time (see your favorite VCS for rpm -- git, cvs, whatever)
rpmrc carried entries for i786/i886/I986.
RPM development (IMHO) became impossible when RPM needed to detect a specific
hardware (and buggy!) hardware flashing on PPC by trapping illegal instructions
faults when compiling on a _COMPATIBLE_ cpu.
Linux kernel dweebs deciding to return "i686" *always* through uname(2) forced
lots of (imperfect IMHO) detection in user space.
And then there were the Newer! Better! Bestest! marketing driven renaming of
x86_64 -> amd64 -> whatever aliasing on Intel platforms.
And then there is/was the insanity of whatever idiot (IMHO) decided to add ARM
cpu attributes by appending to the 4tuple of CPU-VENDOR-OS-GNU for 32bit ARM
cpus.
And so now modifications to "arch compatibility" rpmrc variants for 64 bit ARM
are being discussed ?!?
Truly, "A VAX is a VAX is a ..." compatibility as implemented in RPM rpmrc
files needs to DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! IMHO. The arch naming is _ENTIRELY_
about marketing derived branding, not anything else.
Start using arbitrary names like John/Paul/George/Ringo (or choose your own
favorite rock stars) to identify cpu architectures in RPM: you are far more
likely to devise something useful than trying to preserve last century's
implementation of rpmrc.
If you are not hearing what I am saying, then *PLEASE* show me an Intel i786
cpu: naming is all about marketing/branding, and "compatibility" is in the eye
of the beholder.
Peace ...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/425#issuecomment-378488855
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
