Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles.
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:21:07
Message-Id: CAAD4mYifJ4qX3+sXvk_NgzTCLMa4yH_M75qiYzBqU+AWw3O0aw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] cross compiling arm with 17 profiles. by Mart Raudsepp
1 Hello,
2
3 On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote:
4 > On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
5 >> Something I cant figure out:
6 >>
7 >> ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to
8 >> cross
9 >> compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17
10 >> will
11 >> work fine?
12 >
13 > ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the
14 > profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my
15 > knowledge right now.
16 >
17 > I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native
18 > compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure.
19 >
20
21 If you know anything at all that is more than myself, so can you link
22 to past discussions that you are aware of?
23
24 > If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them
25 > yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate
26 > 17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile
27 > due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If
28 > changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the
29 > time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that
30 > would be either (probably not too bad).
31 >
32
33 My experience with ARM(64) is that it is mature enough that you can
34 expect @system to work unless proven otherwise. Lots of other packages
35 have failures.
36
37 Cheers,
38 R0b0t1