On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:06:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/11/2016 07:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 06:41:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>On 09/11/2016 04:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>Also, we are working on persuading the RISC-V community that they
>>>really must be more proactive in upstreaming their changes, something
>>>they have not been good about so far. For this reason, Fedora/RISC-V
>>>will try to get changes to the following packages upstream and won't
>>>even consider making changes in Fedora (IOW we'll be shipping forks of
>>>these packages for a while):
>[For glibc, binutils, gcc, kernel only]
>>The “IOW“ part does not really make sense to me.
>I mean that currently the changes to those packages are very invasive
>and also involve substantial non-upstream patchsets.
>I want those patchsets to go upstream first, and for the other
>differences in the spec file to be substantially reduced or eliminated.
I had a brief look at the glibc patches. Apparently, off_t and
time_t are 32-bit. For a new architecture, that's quite strange.
I'll just note that the new architecture includes 32, 64 and 128-bit
variants. We are only targetting the 64 bit variant. Whether that
means it's correct to have off_t and time_t be 32 bit, I don't know.
How fixed is the ABI?
I'm hoping quite fixed because I don't want to re-bootstrap
everything, but OTOH nothing is upstream.
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch