Alpha Core 3

[Oliver Falk]

Jay Estabrook schrieb:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 02:26:18PM +0300, Sergey Tikhonov wrote:
>   
>>>> I remember tracing that a long time ago).
>>>> The -p and -i is handled by "uname" and have some altering code for
>>>> other arches. I'll install modified version of uname and see how other
>>>> programs would like the new output. :)
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Let us know!
>>>       
>> So far, no problems for my usual build procedures.
>>     
>
> This (building) is BY FAR my biggest concern about changing ANY of the
> entries returned by "uname -mpi".
>
> There's so much perl and python and sh and whatnot code out there that
> expects certain things for "uname -m", abd possibly both of the
> others, that I'm very fearful of the impact of changes... :-(
>
> I guess it's prolly gonna be "try it and see" time... ;-}
>   

Hm. Jay, that's true, many configures will expect *things*. :-) But 
building for  ev67, ev6, ev68 or whatever is out there should be only 
done for special packages. I'm thinking of: kernel (that will be the 
hardest part, as we will have to provide different .config's; But this 
part make much sense and I believe it will change how uname -m comes 
up!), glibc (should be no problem to turn on special flags with 
--target; Maybe will also influence uname!?), openssl (same as glibc). 
Maybe some other package as well, but these are in my head and I know 
from x86, that they are build for different sub-arches as well. What I 
want to say with that: I don't want to build *everything* for 
sub-arches. That doesn't make sense I believe...

However, what uname -m should return, I will ask tomorrow on lkml... 
Maybe someone has a *good* hint. :-) I believe it's some .config kernel 
voodoo. :-)

-of