Riku Voipio wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 03:40:40AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
|update: since dpkg in etch, gnueabi-arm is pretty much the only choice.
Someone knows what does this mean?
In older dpkg you could just define any
"gcc -dumpmachine <-> dpkg-architecture" mapping in archtable.
dpkg-architecture in dpkg 1.13 returns "os-cpu", where os and arch are
grabbed from ostable and cputable.
|Suggested names for the new port.
|
| gnueabi-arm (long)
Long and the dash ... =)
That's what kfreebsd-i386, hurd-i386 etc have.
The difference being that those have OS-CPU scheme.
gnueabi-arm seems to be ABI-CPU scheme.
As soon as we have the name I can add it to dpkg ...
You are stuch with eabi-arm or gnueabi arm unless you are
going to change the behaviour of dpkg-architecture while
you are it :)
Why can't we just standardize on a single scheme and just implement that
in dpkg-architecture? I've already had to change it for arm-softfloat and
arm-vfp...
My preference would be (OS-)CPU(-LIBC)(-ABI). The CPU might contain
additional
feature specs such as arm-softfloat or arm-vfp, allowing important
ARM combinations (arm, arm-softfloat, arm-uclibc, arm-gnuabi) as
well as stuff like hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-i386-uclibc. That would require
a list of known LIBC's as well as a list of known ABI's in addition of
the list
known OS's and a list of known CPU's.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
