Hello,
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> Something I cant figure out:
>>
>> ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to
>> cross
>> compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17
>> will
>> work fine?
>
> ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the
> profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my
> knowledge right now.
>
> I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native
> compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure.
>
If you know anything at all that is more than myself, so can you link
to past discussions that you are aware of?
> If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them
> yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate
> 17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile
> due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If
> changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the
> time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that
> would be either (probably not too bad).
>
My experience with ARM(64) is that it is mature enough that you can
expect @system to work unless proven otherwise. Lots of other packages
have failures.
Cheers,
R0b0t1
