On 04/03/2018 10:31 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
does not contain irrelevant to package build tag entries.
Mathematically RPMTAG_IDENTITY value is a result of function of two
variable: a package header and an rpm utility,
Pardon the dumb question, but if armv8 is just the 32bit mode of aarch64 why
doesn't aarch64 also need those float/neon/crypto modifiers?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-manag
@mlschroe aarch64 and armv8 are the same CPU, but (obviously, given one is
32bit and one is 64bit) a different ABI -- no need to carry over the legacy
float ABI.
For neon, all aarch64 CPUs made so far have it, and it is part of the aarch64
core - however, ARM's docs say "Both floating-point and
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:41:33AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 10:31 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
> > RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
> > does not contain irrelevant to package build tag entries.
> >
> > Mathematically RPMTAG_IDENTITY va
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:42:15PM +0300, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:41:33AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 04/03/2018 10:31 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
> > > RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
> > > does not contain irrel
@berolinux Just to be clear, I -have- a customer who has asked for armv8
WITHOUT NEON/VFP. This was obviously in the embedded space, but the same
customer is saying that it's not for compatibility, but is actually a 32-bit
'armv8' processor. (No 64-bit support..) I have no idea if those claim
If you wish to move to "human readable" names, then the specific
functionalities tied to arch in rpmrc need to be separately configured.
There's only a few critical values that rpmrc provides a default for
* (per-arch) optflags (like in this issue)
* (global) macrofiles search patterns
and the r
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Aleksei Nikiforov
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Since patch 2 is no longer needed, could you please provide a feedback about
> patch 1? It'd be great if this patch could be merged.
>
I can try ...
The patch seems (from examining the patch only with l
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 2:12 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 04/04/2018 05:32 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:18:35AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:47 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/04/2018 11:01 AM, Panu Matilainen w
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 04/03/2018 10:31 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
>> RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
>> does not contain irrelevant to package build tag entries.
>> Mathematically RPMTAG_IDENTITY value is a resu
On 04/05/2018 03:42 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:41:33AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 04/03/2018 10:31 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
does not contain irrelevant to package build tag entri
11 matches
Mail list logo