* Jeremy Linton: > Hi, > > On 8/17/21 2:06 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Jeremy Linton: >> >>> That said, there as you mention various rpm/package build/etc problems >>> caused by `uname -m` returning armv8. >> Is this something that can be changed with setarch? It works on >> other >> architectures (at least on x86 and POWER). > > Beyond the defaults? I don't know how to pull that off. You get three > differing unames on a armv8 machine that supports aarch64 and aarch32. > > 32-bit kernel armv7l > 64-bit kernel 64-bit process, aarch64 > 64-bit kernel 32-bit process (or via setarch), armv8l > > Trying to force the 64-bit kernel to armv7l via compat/etc just > results in the armv8 moniker. This is probably fixable/etc, or there > is a way I don't know about off hand.
On x86-64, it similar, i686 cannot be downgraded: # setarch i586 uname -m i686 This makes me wonder if we have to fix RPM etc. instead to cope with armv8l. Maybe it's working already. I do think that switching to 64-bit kernels on builders is a prerequisite for continuing to build armhfp. Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
