On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 13:59 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 05:15 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 18:47 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > > > > Thanks to the hard work of many people (including Stefan's contribution > > > this morning to get some of the final nss bits and RPM in place, and of > > > course the groundwork put in place by DJ Delorie), we are now very close > > > to having rpm and rpmbuild. I fixed a problem with digest support > > > earlier, we're just waiting on fixing the RPM macros/teaching RPM about > > > armv7hl vs. armv7l, etc. in patches Dennis already has and will send me. > > > > > > I'm hoping to get the remaining bits in place so that tomorrow's VFAD > > > can be spent building actual RPMs. We'll need to start by rebuilding > > > what we have but in real RPM format, then work toward slowly getting a > > > buildroot that we can use to rebuild everything again, and finally do > > > one more build to have a full featured build environment. It would be > > > awesome to get to a point tomorrow where we've got an armv7hl binutils > > > binary RPM and its deps at least, with anything else being a bonus. > > > > Just as a head's up. I've changed the default build for all v7 systems > > such that we'll target armv7hl, unless it's otherwise set at build. I > > committed the change to redhat-rpm-config, and pushed up to F15. > > Since this came up on IRC, and I need to run, let me note: > > Note. I changed this for a *very specific reason*. Without this, and if > you don't have /proc explicitly mounted, RPM will default to armv5tel. > Since (at least for now), we have no business building armv5tel on armv7 > systems, it's better to make sure nobody is building armv5tel. Really have to run...but just to add... I know it's good to bind mount /proc, it's probably a good idea anyway. I'm also not against agreeing to drop this patch, but I'm not in favor of dropping it just to support some theoretical ARM v7 system without hardfp. There is really, in reality, no such thing as non-hardfp v7 (as long as you do -d16, which we do). Therefore, I can see no harm in assuming armv7 means hardfp for the moment. Finally, I know sparc parses /proc/cpuinfo, so I see where the idea comes from, but as I mentioned in this case before, the correct thing to do is to use something intrinsic from the filesystem, such as the ELF sectional data on the RPM binary itself that says it was build hardfp. I would rather fix the patch not to rely on /proc information, however it is actually done. Anyway, we can debate, but I need to run! For now, at least, just cloning the repo on an armv7hl system will do the right thing for all actual systems that (will ever) exist. Jon. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
