dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-riscv to: Fedora on RISC-V https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RISC-V || Logs: https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/fedora-riscv || Alt Arch discussions are welcome in #fedora-alt-arches
tibbs has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tibbs has joined #fedora-riscv
davidlt has joined #fedora-riscv
davidlt has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
davidlt has joined #fedora-riscv
zsun has joined #fedora-riscv
drewfustini has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
kito-cheng has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
moto-timo has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<davidlt> rwmjones, you might want to share your findings.
kito-cheng has joined #fedora-riscv
moto-timo has joined #fedora-riscv
drewfustini has joined #fedora-riscv
<rwmjones> davidlt: hey
<rwmjones> looking ..
<rwmjones> ok I'll reply on there
<davidlt> I made my mind to disable it, but just checking if everyone are happy with it.
<davidlt> Today I need faster builds, more builds and less memory used.
<davidlt> rwmjones, the next major thing in ~2 months is to figure out binutils 2.41 vs 2.42 (not yet released).
<rwmjones> ok
<davidlt> do we follow upstream Fedora rules, or do we update binutils for bugfixes + new features.
<rwmjones> davidlt: I think for specific cases like binutils which are obviouly very relevant for risc-v then it's perfectly valid to fork those packages
<davidlt> rwmjones, we still need to eval. the diff between 2.41 and 2.42.
<davidlt> For example, I get impression that ULEB128 support might not be ok in 2.41.
<davidlt> Well, maybe it's okay but changes to psABI continues, e.g.: https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/pull/403
<davidlt> looking at current commit log, I want 2.42.
fuwei has joined #fedora-riscv
zsun has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
davidlt has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
_whitelogger has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
_whitelogger_ has joined #fedora-riscv