On Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2019, 08:23:19 CET Guillaume Gardet wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Schröter
Sent: 11 December 2019 08:09 To: Andreas Färber Cc: Guillaume Gardet ; openSUSE ARM ML ; Andrew Wafaa ; Andreas Schwab ; Dirk Müller Subject: Re: [opensuse-arm] arm 32bit vs arm 32bit 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.
I think zypper does not allow armv7 rpms to be installed on aarch64. Which is right for aarch64 SoC which do not support AArch32.
that won't be a problem for the repackaged compat lib packages, since the would appear as aarch64. Similar to what we do on x86_64, eg: libstdc++-devel-32bit-9-1.6.x86_64.rpm so it is a x86_64.rpm which provides the 32bit libs. But you are right, we may want to support also to install armv7hl rpms afterwards for applications.
Not sure how we could handle this difference between SoC properly.
me neither, the bins would just not run. But that is a hardware limitation and
an OS limitation from my POV.
--
Adrian Schroeter