[lfs-support] Architecture suggestion
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jul 15 09:08:48 PDT 2018
On 07/15/2018 08:17 AM, Alan Corey wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, Ken Moffat wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 08:49:19PM -0400, Alan Corey wrote:
>>> Would it be correct to replace x86_64 in your documentation bash scripts
>>> with `uname -m`? Because of course everybody knows ARM is the way of
>>> future. :)
>>> But seriously, I'm not always sure what to relace. Or maybe you
>>> could put
>>> them all on one page? It wouldn't detract from the flow of the main
>>> much that way.
>> You think we know the details for architectures we don't use ?
> Oh, that seems simple enough, you put the ones you know on a web page
> and at the bottom appears a dedicated email address people can send them
> to. You'd probably get a few bogus ones, but look through them once a
> week or so and update the page.
> pi2 (raspbian)
> Linux pi2 4.14.34-v7+ #1110 SMP Mon Apr 16 15:18:51 BST 2018 armv7l
> Linux zero 4.14.50+ #1122 Tue Jun 19 12:21:21 BST 2018 armv6l GNU/Linux
> Linux rock64 4.4.126-rockchip-ayufan-239 #1 SMP Sun May 27 18:38:24 UTC
> 2018 aarch64 GNU/Linux
> up64 (Debian)
> Linux up64 4.16.0-2-arm64 #1 SMP Debian 4.16.16-2 (2018-06-22) aarch64
> Motorola Android phone
> Linux localhost 3.10.49-g824dd55-00001-g217f0f1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Feb 7
> 4 CST 2015 armv7l GNU/Linux
> Linux hp 3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.43-2 (2017-04-30) x86_64
That is not enough. When we make a release, we test every package in
both LFS an dBLFS. Right now that's done twice for System V and systemd.
It is very time consuming. We do not have the resources to do that
for additional architectures.
More information about the lfs-support