On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:00:42PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: >On Mon, Mar 14, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> What is the purpose of the underscore? In other words, what is the >> advantage over arm-linux-gnueabihf? I worry that some tools may not >> like it --- for example, package names like >> >> mlton-target-arm-linux-gnueabi_hf >> >> are not allowed. Which looks very much surmountable, but just in >> case, it seems prudent to ask. >> >> Just to be clear, this is not an objection (both triplets look fine to >> me). I ask in the hope of getting the rationale well documented. > > I think the underscore was originally proposed for multiarch triplets; > Guillem sent a patch without underscore upstream. I've heard an > independent suggestion to use an underscore from GCC upstream, so it > seems underscore might well end up in this triplet. > > Note that the amd64 triplet already uses an underscore (in the CPU part > though): x86_64-linux-gnu, so I don't think the presence of underscore > should be a new technical issue introduced by armhf. It's probably up > to the GCC upstream folks to decide on this.
(Just been reminded on IRC): also, in discussion with two of those gcc folks in Cambridge (Ramana and Richard) and Wookey on Friday, we sort-of agreed on a base architecture level for arm-linux-gnueabihf. Although *technically* it's possible to use armhf on v5 and v6, there's not a huge amount of point. So the right answer is to make arm-linux-gnueabihf imply v7, with vfp3-d16. (/me waits for somebody to come along and correct his faulty memory now...) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Is there anybody out there? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
