On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> Right. So then, the question is where we stand with GLIBC, Carlos?
>>
>> It's going through Mentor's build/test cycle right now with the n
On 05/02/2012 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Right. So then, the question is where we stand with GLIBC, Carlos?
>
> It's going through Mentor's build/test cycle right now with the new
> gcc patch and a revised glibc patch.
Did I mention y
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Right. So then, the question is where we stand with GLIBC, Carlos?
It's going through Mentor's build/test cycle right now with the new
gcc patch and a revised glibc patch.
Cheers,
Carlos.
___
linaro
On 05/02/2012 01:38 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 00:39:37 -0400
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2012 12:15 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope
>>> wrote:
On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Maste
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 02 May 2012 00:39:37 -0400
Jon Masters wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 12:15 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> > On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope
> > wrote:
> >> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote
On 2 May 2012 13:42, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 02/05/12 13:25, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> On 2 May 2012 05:15, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 21 April
On 02/05/12 13:25, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 2 May 2012 05:15, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
On 2 May 2012 05:15, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Following up here. Where do we sta
On 05/02/2012 12:15 AM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Following up here. Where do we s
On 27 April 2012 11:59, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
Hey everyone,
Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
before w
On 23 April 2012 14:23, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
>>> before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
On 04/22/2012 06:06 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
>> before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
>
> Hi Jon. I've been away, sorry. I've just se
On 21 April 2012 09:10, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
> before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
Hi Jon. I've been away, sorry. I've just sent the GCC patch and
Carlos is on the hook for the GLI
Hey everyone,
Following up here. Where do we stand? We need to have upstream patches
before we can pull them into the distro - is that piece done?
Jon.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/
On 12/04/12 19:29, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> off topic but i find aarch64 weird and too generic is it arm alpha amd
> atom.
>
That's only 'cos it's new. It's no different from names like ia64.
R.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain
Em 12 de abril de 2012 03:05, Jakub Jelinek escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
>> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
>
> The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> with all the other architectures. N
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:44:22 -0300
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
wrote:
> Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope
> escreveu:
> > On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>>
> >>>And here's the details as promi
On Thursday 12 April 2012 13:53:13 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:49:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > ia64 installs in /lib, because it isn't a multilibbed architecture.
> >
> > because distros choose not to support it. in first gen chips, there was
> > hardware support
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:49:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ia64 installs in /lib, because it isn't a multilibbed architecture.
>
> because distros choose not to support it. in first gen chips, there was
> hardware support for running x86. so if we were to be strict, there should
> hav
On Thursday 12 April 2012 03:47:29 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33:08AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On 12 April 2012 09:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> > >> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.s
On Thursday 12 April 2012 02:05:23 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> > All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
>
> The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> with all the other architectures.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33:08AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 09:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> >> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> >
> > The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ f
On 12 April 2012 09:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
>> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
>
> The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> with all the other architectures. Note e.g.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
with all the other architectures. Note e.g. x86_64 dynamic linker
is /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2,
On Apr 11, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> * is similar to /lib/ld-x86-64.so.2
> * keeps the libraries and loader in the same directory
> * doesn't invent a new /libhf directory
> * is easier to implement in GLIBC
> * is architecture
Em 11 de abril de 2012 22:39, Michael Hope escreveu:
> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> :
>> Em 11 de abril de 2012 21:16, Michael Hope
>> escreveu:
>>> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>>> :
Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope
escreveu:
> On 12 April 201
2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
:
> Em 11 de abril de 2012 21:16, Michael Hope escreveu:
>> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>> :
>>> Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope
>>> escreveu:
On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 03:37:56 Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:01:47 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > one of the downsides of traveling down a path and upstreaming as an after
> > thought
>
> You didn't really follow arm hardfloat progress in the past 2 years, did
> you
On 12 April 2012 12:38, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Michael Hope [2012-04-12 12:16 +1200]:
>> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>> :
>
>> >> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
>> > Sorry for more bikeshedding,
>> > /lib/ld-linux-armv7hl.so.3
>> I'd rather drop the '
Em 11 de abril de 2012 21:16, Michael Hope escreveu:
> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> :
>> Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope
>> escreveu:
>>> On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>And he
On 04/11/2012 05:16 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>> /lib/ld-linux-armv7hl.so.3
>
> This includes the ABI (h), adds the endianess (l), and implies a
> architecture level (v7). The name for the most common configurations
> should be as short as possible so I'd
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 11:25:55 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote:
> Probably beating a dead cow, but, the major problem with sysroots
> would be the triplet name?
>
> E.g, in any architecture:
>
> /arm-linux-gnueabi/sysroot-contents-here
it isn't really about having a sysroot the too
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 05:47:29 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:01:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >On Tuesday 10 April 2012 06:42:04 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> * /lib/ld-linux-$triplet.so.3
> >> - could work fine, so long as we can agree on triplets
> >
> >kind of
+++ Michael Hope [2012-04-12 12:16 +1200]:
> 2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> :
> >> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> > Sorry for more bikeshedding,
> > /lib/ld-linux-armv7hl.so.3
> I'd rather drop the 'l'
We've already had the GNU triplet-name argu
2012/4/12 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
:
> Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope escreveu:
>> On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And here's the details as promised.
I've started a wiki page at
Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope escreveu:
> On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>>And here's the details as promised.
>>>
>>>I've started a wiki page at
>>>
>>>https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloa
Em 11 de abril de 2012 10:04, Steve McIntyre
escreveu:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:19:38AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>On 04/10/2012 04:42 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>It's one of the things we're trying to achieve with multi-arch. We can
>>>support mixed-ABI, mixed-OS, mixed-architecture environmen
On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>And here's the details as promised.
>>
>>I've started a wiki page at
>>
>>https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/LinkerPathCallApr2012
>>
>>with a strawman agenda for now, an
Hi Steve,
Please ensure Jakub on our end is involved in the meeting. We discussed
compromise solutions that are acceptable to him and Dennis today and I
would like him to be involved in the discussion. He is on CET, but
cannot make calls after 10pm UTC. I prefer that we try to have this on
Friday,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>And here's the details as promised.
>
>I've started a wiki page at
>
>https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/LinkerPathCallApr2012
>
>with a strawman agenda for now, and a Doodle poll at
>
>http://www.doodle.com/93bitkqeb7a
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:19:38AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 04/10/2012 04:42 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>It's one of the things we're trying to achieve with multi-arch. We can
>>support mixed-ABI, mixed-OS, mixed-architecture environments cleanly
>>on one system, using a consistent set of package
On 04/10/2012 04:42 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
It's one of the things we're trying to achieve with multi-arch. We can
support mixed-ABI, mixed-OS, mixed-architecture environments cleanly
on one system, using a consistent set of packages for all. Setting up
a cross-compilation environment suddenly
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:01:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Tuesday 10 April 2012 06:42:04 Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> We understand that not everybody may want or see the need for this for
>> themselves. We *really* get that. But we want it to be possible for
>> *us* to do it, and an ultra-im
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:01:47 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> one of the downsides of traveling down a path and upstreaming as an after
> thought
You didn't really follow arm hardfloat progress in the past 2 years, did you
(if you did you'd already be aware of attempts to get this thing upstreamed
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 06:42:04 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We understand that not everybody may want or see the need for this for
> themselves. We *really* get that. But we want it to be possible for
> *us* to do it, and an ultra-important part of that is to have unique
> loader paths wherever possi
Steve,
Can you make sure the Mentor folks are invited to the party on the glibc
end? Suggest sending this to one of the main glibc lists.
Jon.
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 05:56:38PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>Anyway. My proposal is that we all join the call that Steve is putting
>together on Thursday pm/eve, using my Red Hat bridge. He'll send out the
>information. I would very much appreciate it if you (Jeff) could join
>because you are wi
On 04/10/2012 12:38 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> his point is you can't install multiple architectures into the same root.
>> alpha, arm oabi, and m32r for example have ldso set to /lib/ld-linux.so.2. a
>> quick grep of GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in gcc's config
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:38:17PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 04/09/2012 10:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>his point is you can't install multiple architectures into the same root.
>>alpha, arm oabi, and m32r for example have ldso set to /lib/ld-linux.so.2. a
>>quick grep of GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER i
On 04/09/2012 10:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
his point is you can't install multiple architectures into the same root.
alpha, arm oabi, and m32r for example have ldso set to /lib/ld-linux.so.2. a
quick grep of GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in gcc's config/ tree shows other
collisions.
Hmmm, why would an
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 00:23:09 Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 09 April 2012 15:47:56 Adam Conrad wrote:
> >> To be very, very, very clea here. multilib can not solve the "different
> >> base arches on one system problem". lib/lib32/lib64/libhf/lib
On 04/09/2012 10:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2012 15:47:56 Adam Conrad wrote:
are you not just as much hindering Debian over nothing more than a path to a
single file?
nope. sounds more like self inflicted pain.
To be very, very, very clea here. multilib can not solve t
On Monday 09 April 2012 15:47:56 Adam Conrad wrote:
> are you not just as much hindering Debian over nothing more than a path to a
> single file?
nope. sounds more like self inflicted pain.
> To be very, very, very clea here. multilib can not solve the "different
> base arches on one system pro
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:11:30PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 22:48:34 Wookey wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]:
>
> trying to paint the use of a triplet in the path as any other than multiarch
> is bunk. as Joseph explained in detail, there alread
On Thursday 05 April 2012 05:06:43 Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> >> The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed
> >> mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of
On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
>> The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed
>> mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf
>> and armel binaries on the same systems is useful an
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 22:48:34 Wookey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]:
> > >>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone
> > >>> can start off on the same page with a sane path. i don't think
> > >>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that d
+++ Mike Frysinger [2012-04-02 19:56 -0400]:
> >>> i agree that the ldso needs changing to something unique so everyone
> >>> can start off on the same page with a sane path. i don't think
> >>> forcing everyone into the multi-arch stuff that debian is deploying
> >>> makes sense though. this see
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:31:20 dann frazier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > >>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:18:13PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the lds
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso name
> >> in a multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else need
On 3 April 2012 02:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> yes, this was brought up at Linaro Connect as well; having the ldso name in
>> a multiarch location doesn't mean that anything else needs to be in this
>> location.
> while true, it seems like /l
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:56:16PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 19:52,
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 17:15, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Linaro Connect and other events are probably
On 02.04.2012 21:46, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
decisions and discussions to be made. tho
On 04/02/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
>>> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good
>>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
>> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good
>> place. the wider community needs to be engaged for
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
> >> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe t
Hi Dennis,
On 31 March 2012 19:52, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
> decisions and discussions to be made. though maybe there is not a good
> place. the wider community needs to be engaged for greatest acceptance.
> otherwise then if f
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:04:20 -0400
Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> > I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change.
> > AFAIK we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard
> > of it, we have moved everything from /bin /lib /
On 03/31/2012 12:04 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>> I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change. AFAIK
>> we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard of it, we
>> have moved everything from /bin /lib /lib64 to under /
On 03/31/2012 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I can say for Fedora that we have no plans to adopt that change. AFAIK
> we never agreed to do so infact this is the first ive heard of it, we
> have moved everything from /bin /lib /lib64 to under /usr in Fedora 17.
> we do have symlinks to the ori
On 03/31/2012 12:52 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Linaro Connect and other events are probably the worst place for such
> decisions and discussions to be made.
So the purpose of discussing it there was twofold:
1). To debate what the preferred single unified path would be - it's ARM
specific, it m
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:34:13 +0100
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We really need to push on with getting the loader path for armhf
> standardised. The path that was agreed months ago is
>
> /lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ld-linux.so.3
>
> but clearly not everybody is using that yet. Dann has
Hi folks,
We really need to push on with getting the loader path for armhf
standardised. The path that was agreed months ago is
/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ld-linux.so.3
but clearly not everybody is using that yet. Dann has just posted an
updated patch for gcc, and we want to get this reviewed / f
75 matches
Mail list logo
