Am Dienstag, 30. April 2024, 19:00:33 +11 schrieb Andrea Bolognani:
>
> Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway?
> /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for
> compatibility.
>
> Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:02:52AM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway?
> > /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this
>
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:49:34 +0200
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard W. M. Jones:
> >>
> >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
> >> >> install in the correct
* Andrea Bolognani:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working
>> > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment.
>> >
>> > The
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen Smoogen:
>
> > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the
> > build root
>
> Sorry, I meant $RPM_BUILDROOT or %buildroot (the staging area used by
> rpmbuild). That's not controlled by the
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working
> > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment.
> >
> > The symbolic link isn't in the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 06:07:38AM -0400, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 09:43:34AM +0300, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might
> > > > change ABI.
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>>
>> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
>> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not
>> >> cover all cases.
>> >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not
> >> cover all cases.
> >
> > What cases aren't covered by
* Stephen Smoogen:
> I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the
> build root
Sorry, I meant $RPM_BUILDROOT or %buildroot (the staging area used by
rpmbuild). That's not controlled by the system package manager,
obviously.
Thanks,
Florian
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:31 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the build
> root
>
> Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
> Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. --
> Ian MacClaren
>
>
> On Mon, Apr
I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the build
root
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:22 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> >> I
* Richard W. M. Jones:
>> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
>> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not
>> cover all cases.
>
> What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working
> Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 09:01:51AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:35 AM Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:43:08AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 7:16 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:35 AM Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:43:08AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 7:16 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora
> > > > architecture? IIUC, binaries built
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:43:08AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 7:16 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora
> > > architecture? IIUC, binaries built with -mabi=lp64d wouldn't be able
> > > to load libraries built with
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:16 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Andrea Bolognani:
>
> > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora
> > architecture? IIUC, binaries built with -mabi=lp64d wouldn't be able
> > to load libraries built with -mabi=lp64dv and vice versa.
> >
> > If
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 7:16 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Andrea Bolognani:
>
> > Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora
> > architecture? IIUC, binaries built with -mabi=lp64d wouldn't be able
> > to load libraries built with -mabi=lp64dv and vice versa.
> >
> > If
* Andrea Bolognani:
> Wouldn't changing -mabi effectively make the result a new Fedora
> architecture? IIUC, binaries built with -mabi=lp64d wouldn't be able
> to load libraries built with -mabi=lp64dv and vice versa.
>
> If that's correct, then we can't simply have a single "riscv64"
>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 09:43:34AM +0300, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might
> > > change ABI. Currently Linux distributions target "RV64GC", but we
> > > don't really want
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * David Abdurachmanov:
>
> > We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might
> > change ABI. Currently Linux distributions target "RV64GC", but we
> > don't really want that for the future RISC-V. I keep telling folks
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:08 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Daniel P. Berrangé:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> >> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However,
>
> Just for your information, here's how Gentoo is doing things to stay
> compatible
> with as many variants as possible:
>
PS. Stage files are here:
https://www.gentoo.org/downloads/#riscv
(rv32-ilp32 is still building, rv32 musl is waiting until the worst musl-1.2.5
issues
are ironed
Hi,
I'm handling the RISC-V libdirs in Gentoo.
> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and
> various upstream projects follow
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:07:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Daniel P. Berrangé:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> >> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports.
* David Abdurachmanov:
> We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might
> change ABI. Currently Linux distributions target "RV64GC", but we
> don't really want that for the future RISC-V. I keep telling folks
> that "RV64GC" is already "a legacy" (10+ years old), but that's
* Andrea Bolognani:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
>> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
>> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant,
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
>> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
>> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 06:51:02AM +0300, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 2:19 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > > We currently use a symlink (as Richard) mentioned, but it's not ideal
> > > and causes problems (e.g. meson generates
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 2:19 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > We currently use a symlink (as Richard) mentioned, but it's not ideal
> > and causes problems (e.g. meson generates wrong paths breaking some
> > packages [one example: libplacebo]).
>
> Which I would
David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> We currently use a symlink (as Richard) mentioned, but it's not ideal
> and causes problems (e.g. meson generates wrong paths breaking some
> packages [one example: libplacebo]).
Which I would say is a bug in Meson and should be fixed there.
I do not think having
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:36 PM Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> > the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> > recommends to use
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and
> various upstream
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and
> various upstream
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and
> various upstream
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:23 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> There are multiple PRs and patches floating around that make RISC-V use
> the /usr/lib64 directory, like other 64-bit ports. However, RISC-V
> recommends to use /usr/lib64/lp64d for the Fedora ABI variant, and
> various upstream projects
36 matches
Mail list logo
