We hope that the arch name can use loongarch64, mainly based on the following considerations:
1. The current upstream compilers gcc, llvm, etc. use loongarch64.
2. The current upstream kernel uses loongarch64.
3. At present, there is no special convention for the length of thearchitecture name. If loong64 is used, it is easier to be confused
with the previously used loongarch64.
The following code in https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/dpkg-architecture.1.html:
DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE)
DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
[…]
ifeq ($(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE), $(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE))
confflags += --build=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
else
confflags += --build=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) \
--host=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
endif
[…]
./configure $(confflags)
If you use loong64, it will be contrary to the loongarch64 logo used by
gcc, so we still want to use loongarch64 as the arch name。
On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:04:21AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
In any case, the loong64 name has already been used by other
distributions (Gentoo, ArchLinux, Slackware, etc.), so this is really
not unusual.
I was misleaded by Gentoo Loongarch maintainer, he told me it is
loong64, but actually, it's loong.
Archlinux and Slackware are downstream ports, not upstreamed yet.
My question is, is it necessary to use same name for all distos?
When Loongson releases 32bit loongarch, then loong32 can be its dpkg name,
if we select loong for 64bit. first come takes the shorter one.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 56:50:58 |
Calls: | 6,712 |
Files: | 12,243 |
Messages: | 5,355,478 |