On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:06:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/11/2016 07:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 06:41:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>On 09/11/2016 04:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>>Also, we are working on persuading the RISC-V community that they > >>>really must be more proactive in upstreaming their changes, something > >>>they have not been good about so far. For this reason, Fedora/RISC-V > >>>will try to get changes to the following packages upstream and won't > >>>even consider making changes in Fedora (IOW we'll be shipping forks of > >>>these packages for a while): > > > >[For glibc, binutils, gcc, kernel only] > > > >>The “IOW“ part does not really make sense to me. > > > >I mean that currently the changes to those packages are very invasive > >and also involve substantial non-upstream patchsets. > > > >I want those patchsets to go upstream first, and for the other > >differences in the spec file to be substantially reduced or eliminated. > > I had a brief look at the glibc patches. Apparently, off_t and > time_t are 32-bit. For a new architecture, that's quite strange. I'll just note that the new architecture includes 32, 64 and 128-bit variants. We are only targetting the 64 bit variant. Whether that means it's correct to have off_t and time_t be 32 bit, I don't know. > How fixed is the ABI? I'm hoping quite fixed because I don't want to re-bootstrap everything, but OTOH nothing is upstream. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
