Loïc's latest post drew my attention back to this thread, where I see I had this message flagged for follow-up:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:35:24AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > I realize this is ideal, but: > > - there's been very strong upstream pushback on this, asserting that this > > is the correct triplet to use for both arm calling conventions, so if we > > require a distinct triplet for armhf (instead of using the vendor field), > > that's going to block any armhf port for quite a while (possibly > > indefinitely) > > - armhf was not the sole motivation for the proposal to define neutral > > architecture names; x86 was already a problem because of the changing > > triplets depending on which level of instruction set compatibility is > > targeted. *Both* of these examples show that GNU triplets are not > > defined in a way that they map directly to what we need for multiarch, so > > it's best to explicitly define our mapping externally. > > So even if you persuaded the upstream toolchain folks to specify a new > > triplet for armhf after all, I think we should still go ahead with a > > separate name mapping table for multiarch. > Note that uclibc also suffers this problems. x86_64-linux-uclibc is in > no way unique as different uclibc compile options create different ABIs > all with the same tripplet. We have a draft proposal for tuples to use in the filesystem paths for multiarch: http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples uclibc is included in the design, with a single identifier of 'uclibc'. We probably need to have a better definition here. Where is the right place to raise this point for discussion in Debian? Should I bring this up on the debian-embedded list? Are there other stakeholders who would have input regarding the array of available uclibc ABIs and how to specify these? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110217200306.gb11...@virgil.dodds.net
