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 |