[Rpm-maint] AArch64 support

[Mark Salter]

On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 17:14 +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:14:54AM -0500, Mark Salter wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 12:44 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Sorry for the late response, this has gotten buried in the rather 
> > > unusual flood of mail and patches of late...
> > > 
> > > On 01/29/2013 10:36 PM, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > > Here is a patch which adds support for AArch64 architecture. This is
> > > > just basic support and further support (i.e. auxv parsing) may be desired.
> > > > It is pretty straightforward except for the hunk in installplatform which
> > > > sets LIB=${LIB}64. The existing test does this for linux and CANONCOLOR 3.
> > > > Aarch64 is CANONCOLOR 2, but still wants to use lib64 for the libdir.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, aarch64 is not a "multilib architecture"? Or is it just to keep 
> > > things simple by not allowing multilib despite the hardware being 
> > > capable of it? (I'm mostly just curious, but also related to the libdir 
> > > thing)
> > 
> > Honestly, I'm looking at it from a Fedora perspective where the decision
> > was made to not support multilib for AArch64. AArch64 h/w may be able to
> > support 32-bit armv8 (AArch32) execution, so non-Fedora folk may have
> > different opinions about multilib.
> 
> But isn't it enough to don't include aarch32 in the arch_compat list?
> Why also mess with canoncolor?

The patch I posted was mostly the result of cloning ia64 bits because
ia64 was 64-bit only even though it could support ia32. But leaving that
aside, let's say we use canoncolor=3 for aarch64. It doesn't look like
arch_compat would help in excluding aarch32. Maybe _transaction_color?