On Tue, Nov 09, 2010, Jérémy Lal wrote:
-mno-thumb-interwork is a bit suspicious; I'm not entirely comfortable
on the architecture revisions and cases where these flags are
explicitly needed, but in any case the toolchain defaults should be
fine.
It seems the only reason left for
On 09/11/2010 10:33, Loïc Minier wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010, Jérémy Lal wrote:
-mno-thumb-interwork is a bit suspicious; I'm not entirely comfortable
on the architecture revisions and cases where these flags are
explicitly needed, but in any case the toolchain defaults should be
fine.
On 29/09/2010 19:46, Loïc Minier wrote:
Hey folks
I played around with the package, it compiled with plain settings, but
it was rather unoptimised (armv5t, etc). So I decided to make it to
build a specialized version for armhf (armv7-a basically,
float-abi=hard is implied in the
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010, Jérémy Lal wrote:
i'm removing the march=armv4t flag from SContruct (it was a patch anyway),
since it's up to the debian gcc armel default target to decide which arch
it should compile for.
I'm also checking if the other flag no-thumb-interwork is still needed,
since
On 08/11/2010 18:45, Loïc Minier wrote:
I would be careful when removing the march=armv4t and other flags; I
think it's the right thing to do, but other places might have to be
patched; for instance, I see ANDROID_FLAGS for instance has it
hardcoded, while it doesn't apply to
Hey folks
I played around with the package, it compiled with plain settings, but
it was rather unoptimised (armv5t, etc). So I decided to make it to
build a specialized version for armhf (armv7-a basically,
float-abi=hard is implied in the compiler settings as it is the
default). I
Hi, i just gave a try to your patch, and it seems ok, except for
W: libv8 source: unknown-architecture armhf
I usually try not to make lintian complain, do debian-ports architectures
are expected to be allowed by lintian ?
Jérémy.
On 17/09/2010 15:00, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On Friday
On 16/09/2010 09:12, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 23:17:08 Jérémy Lal wrote:
On 15/09/2010 21:38, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
Package: libv8
Version: 2.2.24-5
Severity: wishlist
Armhf is a new ARM port (higher base requirements than armel, namely,
On Friday 17 September 2010 13:03:51 Jérémy Lal wrote:
Thank you for the patch.
Do the armhf port is concerned by squeeze release, so libv8 for armhf
should get a freeze exception ?
No, not at all. armhf is a squeeze+1 at the earliest, so there is no need to
get an exception. Feel free to
On Wednesday 15 September 2010 23:17:08 Jérémy Lal wrote:
On 15/09/2010 21:38, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
Package: libv8
Version: 2.2.24-5
Severity: wishlist
Armhf is a new ARM port (higher base requirements than armel, namely,
armv7-a, thumb2, vfpv3-d16 and float-abi=hard)
Package: libv8
Version: 2.2.24-5
Severity: wishlist
Armhf is a new ARM port (higher base requirements than armel, namely, armv7-a,
thumb2, vfpv3-d16
and float-abi=hard) for now residing in debian-ports.org. Since libv8 supports
ARM, it would be
appreciated it if you could add armhf to the list
On 15/09/2010 21:38, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
Package: libv8
Version: 2.2.24-5
Severity: wishlist
Armhf is a new ARM port (higher base requirements than armel, namely,
armv7-a, thumb2, vfpv3-d16
and float-abi=hard) for now residing in debian-ports.org. Since libv8
supports ARM,
12 matches
Mail list logo
