Re: [opensuse-arm] arm 32bit vs arm 32bit

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. 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. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org