On 5 April 2012 04:18, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 04:06:01 Riku Voipio wrote:
The choice of using multiarch path for armhf linker path was agreed mostly because 1) people agreed that having the possibility of armhf and armel binaries on the same systems is useful and 2) nobody proposed anything else.
i don't see value in having multiple endians being active simultaneously. it might make for a fun exercise, but people won't deploy systems with them both installed. after all, the kernel isn't bi-endian on the fly.
Sorry for being ambigous. With "armel" I mean arm eabi with softfloat abi. What people agreed was useful was supporting those binaries along with eabi hardfloat binaries "armhf". Both are in this case little-endian. I'm not aware of anyone interested in different endian binaries on same systems.
Riku