[opensuse-arm] AArch64 and lib - lib64 directories
Hi, I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib. It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib. Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same. Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. Guillaume -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage.
I think it makes sense to follow Fedora here. It will ensure that we maintain compatibility at least within rpm based distros. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 30 January 2013 16:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage.
I think it makes sense to follow Fedora here. It will ensure that we maintain compatibility at least within rpm based distros.
We should indeed use lib64, not only to maintain compatibility with the likes of Fedora, but it also simplifies things across architectures. If I'm not totally mistaken, Debian do the symlink dance as they use multiarch so are somewhat different. Regards, Andy -- Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin GPG: 0x3A36312F -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Le 30/01/2013 18:02, Andrew Wafaa a écrit :
On 30 January 2013 16:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. I think it makes sense to follow Fedora here. It will ensure that we maintain compatibility at least within rpm based distros.
We should indeed use lib64, not only to maintain compatibility with the likes of Fedora, but it also simplifies things across architectures. If I'm not totally mistaken, Debian do the symlink dance as they use multiarch so are somewhat different.
Ok. And what about CANONCOLOR parameter for RPM: # The default transaction color. This value is a set of bits to # determine file and dependency affinity for this arch. # 0 uncolored (i.e. use only arch as install hint) # 1 Elf32 permitted # 2 Elf64 permitted Fedora uses code 2 (Elf64 only) but AArch64 should be able to run Elf32 also, so code 3 (1+2) should be better. What do you think about that? Regards, Guillaume
Regards,
Andy
-- Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin GPG: 0x3A36312F
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 30 January 2013 17:10, Guillaume Gardet <guillaume.gardet@free.fr> wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 18:02, Andrew Wafaa a écrit :
On 30 January 2013 16:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage.
I think it makes sense to follow Fedora here. It will ensure that we maintain compatibility at least within rpm based distros.
We should indeed use lib64, not only to maintain compatibility with the likes of Fedora, but it also simplifies things across architectures. If I'm not totally mistaken, Debian do the symlink dance as they use multiarch so are somewhat different.
Ok. And what about CANONCOLOR parameter for RPM:
# The default transaction color. This value is a set of bits to # determine file and dependency affinity for this arch. # 0 uncolored (i.e. use only arch as install hint) # 1 Elf32 permitted # 2 Elf64 permitted
Fedora uses code 2 (Elf64 only) but AArch64 should be able to run Elf32 also, so code 3 (1+2) should be better.
What do you think about that?
Good question. My gut says to use code 3, but I'm not 100% sure. Fedora use code 2 only as they have made a public statement that they do not care about 32bit on ARMv8, they said the same thing about only caring about ARMv7 but then when the RaspberryPi came out they back peddled somewhat to add v5 which they have now scheduled for dropping and having v6 support provided by a partner (Seneca College); so who is to say they won't change down the line. Aarch64 supports running 32bit on a 64bit platform much the way x86 does now, and there are still a number of 32bit only binaries on x86. So who is to say the same may not happen on ARM? I'm going to ask around in the office and see what others suggest. Regards, Andy -- Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin GPG: 0x3A36312F -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
El 30/01/13 14:28, Andrew Wafaa escribió:
and there are still a number of 32bit only binaries on x86. So who is to say the same may not happen on ARM?
Nobody says that it will not happend ;) however I strongly urge you not to add yet another layer of complexity and dependencies to a new target for which hardware is yet to be widely available. Do not repeat the same mistakes of the past :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
El 30/01/13 14:28, Andrew Wafaa escribió:
My gut says to use code 3, but I'm not 100% sure. Fedora use code 2 only as they have made a public statement that they do not care about 32bit on ARMv8.
Someone sane is taking the right choice.. phew. that's great to know :-) I sometimes think we live in the OSS mental asylum ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 30 January 2013 17:54, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@opensuse.org> wrote:
El 30/01/13 14:28, Andrew Wafaa escribió:
My gut says to use code 3, but I'm not 100% sure. Fedora use code 2 only as they have made a public statement that they do not care about 32bit on ARMv8.
Someone sane is taking the right choice.. phew. that's great to know :-) I sometimes think we live in the OSS mental asylum ;)
Cristian, Are you saying we shouldn't have 32bit support on aarch64? By design the new architecture supports 32bit, and as we don't support multiarch we are potentially locking out some users/developers. Having spoken to several people at work, they all tend to agree with supporting both 64bit & 32bit. I'm some what unclear on what the technical pros/cons are in doing this, but my understanding is that there is no additional effort/cycles needed to support both. Please enlighten me as to the issues ;-) Regards, Andy -- Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin GPG: 0x3A36312F -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/31/2013 05:17 AM, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
Are you saying we shouldn't have 32bit support on aarch64?
Yes. I am :-) The same way we dont support arm in big-endian mode or powerpc little-endian etc.. and as we don't support multiarch
we are potentially locking out some users/developers.
I do not thnk so. note that I am *not* advocating for removing the capability to run 32 bit apps, what I am proposing is to not provide -32bit runtime packages like we have in x86_64.
Having spoken to several people at work, they all tend to agree with supporting both 64bit & 32bit.
They surely tend to agree. that's because they are not working in maintaining a huge distribution :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 31.01.2013, at 14:28, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 01/31/2013 05:17 AM, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
Are you saying we shouldn't have 32bit support on aarch64?
Yes. I am :-)
The same way we dont support arm in big-endian mode or powerpc little-endian etc..
and as we don't support multiarch
we are potentially locking out some users/developers.
I do not thnk so. note that I am *not* advocating for removing the capability to run 32 bit apps, what I am proposing is to not provide -32bit runtime packages like we have in x86_64.
Right, I agree with you there. For now. However, if the need arises, we should be able to deliver armv7 packages as -32bit additional packages as well. I still very much doubt we will need this, but if we do, we shouldn't have blocked our path to there. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
El 30/01/13 13:32, Guillaume Gardet escribió:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage.
Guillaume
Yes, use lib64 and for the future sakes, let's not include -32bit packages in this new target. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage.
We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.) We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :) Alex [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/aarch64-port -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :)
Ok. It is ggardet. Guillaume
Alex
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/30/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :)
Ok.
It is ggardet.
Great :). You're in now. I'm currently compiling screen - let's see how that goes. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Le 30/01/2013 20:26, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 01/30/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :)
Ok.
It is ggardet.
Great :). You're in now. I'm currently compiling screen - let's see how that goes.
Thanks. What would be the structure of the git repo? Something like: - RPM/ - SRPM/ - bootstrap_rootfs - *.axf image - script to rebuild block-device image from rootfs ? Moreover, what would be the workflow? What would be the fastest is: using an existing rootfs (linaro or fedora) as a base and then build missing packages manually to get rpm tools to be able to build some RPM packages manually. (It is what I am doing those days). Once enough RPM are built, we rebuild a rootfs from those RPM. Then, we can build more RPM. We could also cross-build manually the first rootfs from sources. We will lose some time but we are sure that packages version are the same. What do you think about that? Guillaume -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 31.01.2013, at 09:43, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:26, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 01/30/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :)
Ok.
It is ggardet.
Great :). You're in now. I'm currently compiling screen - let's see how that goes.
Thanks.
What would be the structure of the git repo? Something like:
- RPM/
- SRPM/
- bootstrap_rootfs
- *.axf image
- script to rebuild block-device image from rootfs ?
Moreover, what would be the workflow? What would be the fastest is: using an existing rootfs (linaro or fedora) as a base and then build missing packages manually to get rpm tools to be able to build some RPM packages manually. (It is what I am doing those days).
Exactly. What we need is a rootfs that we can put into a bootstrap.rpm. This rpm would provide all the dependencies we need to build the base system. With a bit of fiddling, we should be able to inject this into an OBS worker instance that would run inside the Foundation model. Then OBS can rebuild all packages required to get its initial bootstrap up and working. I've assembled a rootfs based on Fedora + OE + self-compiled code that should have all dependencies except for rpm :). I'll try to push it into the git repo asap. If you could then check in the rpm bits, we could try to kick a build off :). Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Le 31/01/2013 10:01, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 31.01.2013, at 09:43, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:26, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 01/30/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib.
It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib.
Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same.
Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html
It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :) Ok.
It is ggardet. Great :). You're in now. I'm currently compiling screen - let's see how that goes. Thanks.
What would be the structure of the git repo? Something like:
- RPM/
- SRPM/
- bootstrap_rootfs
- *.axf image
- script to rebuild block-device image from rootfs ?
Moreover, what would be the workflow? What would be the fastest is: using an existing rootfs (linaro or fedora) as a base and then build missing packages manually to get rpm tools to be able to build some RPM packages manually. (It is what I am doing those days). Exactly. What we need is a rootfs that we can put into a bootstrap.rpm. This rpm would provide all the dependencies we need to build the base system.
With a bit of fiddling, we should be able to inject this into an OBS worker instance that would run inside the Foundation model. Then OBS can rebuild all packages required to get its initial bootstrap up and working.
I've assembled a rootfs based on Fedora + OE + self-compiled code that should have all dependencies except for rpm :). I'll try to push it into the git repo asap. If you could then check in the rpm bits, we could try to kick a build off :).
Ok, let me know once you pushed it to git. Then, I will rebuild rpm (and missing deps) against this rootfs. Guillaume -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On 31.01.2013, at 10:13, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 31/01/2013 10:01, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 31.01.2013, at 09:43, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:26, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 01/30/2013 08:23 PM, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
Le 30/01/2013 20:09, Alexander Graf a écrit :
On 30.01.2013, at 17:32, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
> Hi, > > I was wondering if we want to use /lib64 and /usr/lib64 for AArch64 or use /lib and /usr/lib. > > It seems Fedora uses lib64 whereas linaro uses lib. > > Debian seems to use a symlink so that lib and lib64 are the same. > > Some people discussed about that on cross-distro list some times ago; AArch64 triplet thread: > http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-November/thread.html > > It seems Fedora is right using lib64 convention. > Should we use it also? It is better to decide now since aarch64 is at an early stage. We should work together on building up working binaries and RPMs. We created a git repository for this - similar to what Fedora did. In there we can have different branches with binary blobs (rootfs, rpms, etc.)
We would like to add you to that git repository[1], but for that we need your github user name. Would you mind to create one or tell us what it is? :) Ok.
It is ggardet. Great :). You're in now. I'm currently compiling screen - let's see how that goes. Thanks.
What would be the structure of the git repo? Something like:
- RPM/
- SRPM/
- bootstrap_rootfs
- *.axf image
- script to rebuild block-device image from rootfs ?
Moreover, what would be the workflow? What would be the fastest is: using an existing rootfs (linaro or fedora) as a base and then build missing packages manually to get rpm tools to be able to build some RPM packages manually. (It is what I am doing those days). Exactly. What we need is a rootfs that we can put into a bootstrap.rpm. This rpm would provide all the dependencies we need to build the base system.
With a bit of fiddling, we should be able to inject this into an OBS worker instance that would run inside the Foundation model. Then OBS can rebuild all packages required to get its initial bootstrap up and working.
I've assembled a rootfs based on Fedora + OE + self-compiled code that should have all dependencies except for rpm :). I'll try to push it into the git repo asap. If you could then check in the rpm bits, we could try to kick a build off :).
Ok, let me know once you pushed it to git. Then, I will rebuild rpm (and missing deps) against this rootfs.
I don't think there's a need to rebuild. Just copy the binaries over. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Alexander Graf -
Andrew Wafaa -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Guillaume Gardet