W dniu 14.05.2020 o 14:34, Florian Weimer pisze:
> Just to be clear here, armhfp is *not* the common denominator of all
> 32-bit Arm architectures. It does not cover the overall architecture in
> the sense that is compatible to with everything out there. (I'm not
> sure if that is even
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:13 am, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
You keep thinking that ARM is a secondary architecture and it would
be on alt.fedoraproject.org. ARM is a primary architecture and so
would NOT show up on alt. ARM has been a primary architecture for
many releases so this isn't new.
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:49:35PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:51 am, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> >Those pages are needing some love and care as aarch64 should not
> >be on it anymore. Currently the primary architectures that Fedora
> >builds against are
> >
>
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:34 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Robinson:
>
> > armhfp is "Arm hard floating point" which covers the overall ARM 32
> > bit architecture, there can be different variants in there, armv6,
> > armv7, armv7+NEON, armv8 (the 32 bit variant as opposed to aarch64)
> >
> > armhfp is "Arm hard floating point" which covers the overall ARM 32
> > bit architecture, there can be different variants in there, armv6,
> > armv7, armv7+NEON, armv8 (the 32 bit variant as opposed to aarch64)
> > and so on...
>
> Just to be clear here, armhfp is *not* the common denominator
* Peter Robinson:
> armhfp is "Arm hard floating point" which covers the overall ARM 32
> bit architecture, there can be different variants in there, armv6,
> armv7, armv7+NEON, armv8 (the 32 bit variant as opposed to aarch64)
> and so on...
Just to be clear here, armhfp is *not* the common
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> When x86_64 splits into 48 bit memory path to some larger memory (60
> bit I think is discussed) sometime in the future, we will probably
> still call it x86_64 but build x86_64b packages.
This has already happened. You did not notice it because it did not
require
> > Those pages are needing some love and care as aarch64 should not be
> > on it anymore. Currently the primary architectures that Fedora builds
> > against are
> >
> > [smooge@batcave01 32]$ ls -l Workstation/
> > total 12
> > drwxr-xr-x. 3 263 263 4096 2020-04-23 00:09 aarch64/
> > drwxr-xr-x.
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 13:50, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:51 am, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > Those pages are needing some love and care as aarch64 should not be
> > on it anymore. Currently the primary architectures that Fedora builds
> > against are
> >
> >
James, so you guys still rely on koji for builds?
That's relevant for this thread
m
On Wed, May 13, 2020, 5:31 PM James Cameron wrote:
> Thanks Martin.
>
> That release was a respin of Fedora 18. Regressions in Fedora 20, and
> our downsize at OLPC, stopped us tracking Fedora.
>
> Lubomir
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:51 am, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
Those pages are needing some love and care as aarch64 should not be
on it anymore. Currently the primary architectures that Fedora builds
against are
[smooge@batcave01 32]$ ls -l Workstation/
total 12
drwxr-xr-x. 3 263 263 4096
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 09:15, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why are we still doing builds for armv7l in koji?
>
> I see that it is not represented on https://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt/
> so I presume we no longer support installing this architecture. Is it
> really only used for multilib,
> > Also, multilib for aarch64 + armv7hl is not "A Thing" (TM), IIRC
> > because no aarch64 hardware really supports that.
> >
>
> There is hardware that does support it, but we pretend they don't
> exist in Fedora. After all, the Raspberry Pi is an example of this.
No, there's HW that will run
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:20 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Also, multilib for aarch64 + armv7hl is not "A Thing" (TM), IIRC
> because no aarch64 hardware really supports that.
>
There is hardware that does support it, but we pretend they don't
exist in Fedora. After all, the Raspberry Pi is an
> Why are we still doing builds for armv7l in koji?
Because it's still a primary architecture and actively used and supported.
> I see that it is not represented on https://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt/
> so I presume we no longer support installing this architecture. Is it
> really only used for
Looping in James Cameron - as recently as Jan 2020 he's made a release for
armv7l
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2020-January/039079.html
hth ~ martin
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:21 AM Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:14 AM Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>
>> Why are we
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:14 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> Why are we still doing builds for armv7l in koji?
>
Presumably for OLPC packages. That ARM build target is/was the right one
for the ARM CPUs on those.
I haven't been in the loop for a while, but until recently there was a
group of
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:14 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Why are we still doing builds for armv7l in koji?
>
> I see that it is not represented on https://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt/
> so I presume we no longer support installing this architecture. Is it
> really only used for
Hi,
Why are we still doing builds for armv7l in koji?
I see that it is not represented on https://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt/
so I presume we no longer support installing this architecture. Is it
really only used for multilib, like the i686 packages? If so, is it
really necessary? If we're
19 matches
Mail list logo
