On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Disadvantages:
> • Massive over-use of disk space. (Nowadays, storage disk is cheap,
I disagree!
While I just bought a 1TB disk for $50 (USB WD Essentials), the Efika
MX only comes
with 4GB (TO2, rev 1.1) or 8GB (TO3, rev 1.3) of disk space
Hector Oron writes:
> Hi Goswin,
>
It wouldn't. I don't see a compelling reason for dpkg to do this at all.
Your quote shows that dpkg *does* do this today, which I didn't remember
before this conversation, but that's not an explanation for *why* it does
-
as opposed to
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:02:32PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
>
> > 2010/7/18 Steve Langasek :
> > > I'm puzzled why dpkg needs a unique triplet for a port. dpkg needs to map
> > > port names to triplets, but why does it need to do the inverse? And if
Hi Goswin,
>>> It wouldn't. I don't see a compelling reason for dpkg to do this at all.
>>> Your quote shows that dpkg *does* do this today, which I didn't remember
>>> before this conversation, but that's not an explanation for *why* it does
>>> -
>>> as opposed to dpkg directly recording what i
Hector Oron writes:
> Dear Steve,
>
> 2010/7/24, Steve Langasek :
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:02:32PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
>>> 2010/7/18 Steve Langasek :
>
>>> AFAICS `dpkg' relais on -dumpmachine from `gcc'
>>> scripts/Dpkg/Arch.pm:68:my $gcc_host_gnu_type = `\${CC:-gcc}
>>> -dump
Hello Loïc,
2010/7/25, Loïc Minier :
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Sysroot is everybody's way to cross compile in world but us (Debian)
>> if multiarch aims to be a fit-all solution it should be relevant, if
>> it is not, either you might misunderstood sysroot rationale or I just
>
Dear Steve,
2010/7/24, Steve Langasek :
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:02:32PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
>> 2010/7/18 Steve Langasek :
>> AFAICS `dpkg' relais on -dumpmachine from `gcc'
>> scripts/Dpkg/Arch.pm:68:my $gcc_host_gnu_type = `\${CC:-gcc}
>> -dumpmachine`;
> It wouldn't. I don'
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:02:32PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> 2010/7/18 Steve Langasek :
> > I'm puzzled why dpkg needs a unique triplet for a port. dpkg needs to map
> > port names to triplets, but why does it need to do the inverse? And if it
> > doesn't need to map triplet->port, why would t
Hector Oron writes:
> (CC: debian-dpkg as it is `dpkg' and multiarch related)
> (Reset and rename subject from `Re: cortex /
> arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name
> for an armel variant)' to current)
> (Please follow-up discussion on debian-dpkg@ for multiarch and
On Monday 19 July 2010 22:51:42 Hector Oron wrote:
> But the question is why would you run 'armel' binaries on 'armhf'
> architecture (outside a chroot - within multiarch qualified paths) as
> a user (not developing or building for 'armel'), which is the use case
> of being able to run 'armel' bina
On Monday 19 July 2010 21:02:32 Hector Oron wrote:
> In 'armhf' case $ gcc -dumpmachine spits the same GCC tuplet (unless
> we use GCC vendor tag as an ABI tag)
> But `dpkg' do not mach quadruplet names, not yet... ;-)
It does now... :)
I had to modify in particular scripts/Dpkg/Arch.pm and script
Hi,
2010/7/19 Konstantinos Margaritis :
>> I can't see a use case to run 'armel' binaries on 'armhf' rootfs if
>> hardware supports it and software is free.
>
> From a hardware point of view, if it can run armhf it will certainly be able
> to run armel. A developer would be able to provide both pa
12 matches
Mail list logo
