| 1 |
On P, 2017-12-17 at 16:50 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> Something I cant figure out: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> ARM is still on the 13 profiles - should an amd64 system used to |
| 5 |
> cross |
| 6 |
> compile for arm (Raspberry Pi's) be left on the 13 profiles or 17 |
| 7 |
> will |
| 8 |
> work fine? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
ARM profiles are delayed to potentially fix CHOSTs together with the |
| 11 |
profile update. Though no-one is actively doing the work to my |
| 12 |
knowledge right now. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I guess it could cause trouble from default PIE vs no PIE from native |
| 15 |
compiler, but I don't know enough about that field to know for sure. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you pay attention to any future CHOST changes and handle them |
| 18 |
yourself at the right time, you could manually choose the appropriate |
| 19 |
17.0 arm profile as your symlink (it doesn't show up in eselect profile |
| 20 |
due to no profiles.desc entry, but should be there in profiles/). If |
| 21 |
changes are done, you might be caught a bit off-guard though at the |
| 22 |
time they are done though and I'm not sure what the effects of that |
| 23 |
would be either (probably not too bad). |
Archives