On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 07:47:01AM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:12:41AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
>> tools POV). The one _good_ reason for using the aarch64 name is avoiding
>> accidental matches with arm* in various bits of configery so leaving
>> that alone probably makes s
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:12:41AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> tools POV). The one _good_ reason for using the aarch64 name is avoiding
> accidental matches with arm* in various bits of configery so leaving
> that alone probably makes sense despite the silly name.
How much of the arm* silliness is the
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Wookey wrote:
> Arm64 everywhere would have been neater but unless someone is
> volunteering for a massive argument and changing upstream gcc and
No way. it is difficult to do better at this kind of thing than Linus, and
he has already said his piece :-p It won't be aarch64
+++ Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [2012-07-20 16:55 -0300]:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Naming
> > ==
> >
> > Naming issues: ARM are calling the new 64-bit architecture
> > AArch64. Other people don't like that and various other names have
> > been proposed for use elsewhere
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Naming
> ==
>
> Naming issues: ARM are calling the new 64-bit architecture
> AArch64. Other people don't like that and various other names have
> been proposed for use elsewhere. Debian/Ubuntu developers have already
> picked the name "arm64" in dpk
[ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ]
Hi folks,
Here's a summary of what we discussed in the AArch64 port planning BoF
[1] last week (10th July). Thanks to the awesome efforts of the
DebConf video team, the video of the session is already online [2] in
case you missed it. I've also attached
6 matches
Mail list logo
