On Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2019, 18:06:04 CET Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi,
Am 10.12.19 um 16:21 schrieb Guillaume Gardet:
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Schröter
Sent: 07 December 2019 12:46 To: openSUSE ARM ML (opensuse-arm@opensuse.org) Subject: [opensuse-arm] arm 32bit vs arm 32bit Hi,
I was going to add 32bit package configs to repackage armv7hl libs for aarch64 installations (for personal need, samsung binary only printer driver)
However, I noticed that armv7hl 32bit userland would conflict with aarch64_ilp32 definitions.
Was there already any discussion how a mixed arch installation should look alike?
My proposal would be (for a aarch64 installation):
armv[567]* libs should be installed in /lib (and /usr/lib) via *-32bit*.aarch64.rpm /lib to stay compatible with armv[567] installations.
aarch64_ilp32 libs should be installed in /lib-ilp32 via *-ilp32*.aarch64.rpm current config seems to put these in -32bit packages, what seems to be wrong to me.
Do we also need to take care about aarch32?
any opinion about this?
AFAIK, you cannot use armv7 libs/bins as is on arm64 systems.
It depends on the CPU. ThunderX and Kunpeng 920 don't support AArch32 mode, but most Cortex cores still do.
I concur that the outlined ilp32-as-32bit setup sounds wrong, in particular since that is not even mainline-supported still.
okay, so I can drop that part of the code again moving ilp32 into /lib for compat packages ....
There were discussions or even recommendations on cross-distro or so some years back on naming/placement - Andy might remember.
As for AArch32, I assume you mean armv8l? I don't think we currently build any packages for it, at least we have no separate scheduler.
yes, question is if it may appear at some point of time and where to put
libraries then.
but this is maybe to far ahead, if it is /lib as well we would anyway have
the conflict with armv7l. So I think, I just go forward and adapt baselibs
config to generate armv7l (and armv6l?) libs into /lib.
--
Adrian Schroeter