From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-95370-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC6F1580B9 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A195E0AB8; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailbox.box.xen0n.name (unknown [115.28.160.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C2B9E09A8 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.9.172] (unknown [101.88.30.186]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailbox.box.xen0n.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D050560091 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:30:05 +0800 (CST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=xen0n.name; s=mail; t=1629775805; bh=JUEvCUVhEqPOZOFP1gnjVVOcMAhicV53BqMAsQeNFpo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=XZ3q2mR9biwP0hMBYZr1p5HTgHEW3mskoqZLKbpPe91KHh3yRozwncF0qVT+UGFXT HLXDyYVMhJ0qyuK8QJwlhmf8deFiVHghHoRjjvSG3nmE7tW/VX8pPT1lK7QmPZuJNR 78VoXEhr14RUraXhemJMBdVS5Dar84Pfhwss63TE= Message-ID: <417f6b30-5af4-da58-9d3d-c081a3d366e5@xen0n.name> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:30:05 +0800 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/93.0a1 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port Content-Language: en-US To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <b008ca13-896a-0a8f-3e9d-1be07cdd65d4@xen0n.name> <YRQTY8P3/LF0RKAP@linux1.home> <4eb1c199-af10-cc46-faf2-5396b2de5f09@xen0n.name> <dea7adf47cda90655718c0b1eea060b576883681.camel@gentoo.org> <ufsvfnp3k@gentoo.org> From: WANG Xuerui <i.gentoo@xen0n.name> In-Reply-To: <ufsvfnp3k@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 77444ece-5875-4395-b0c0-4da0e6b7289f X-Archives-Hash: ef30d0b0d3afaa46bd18202fb3b25c52 On 8/12/21 14:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: >>> I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally >>> long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's >>> perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but >>> "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. >> I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. >> We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". > Can we please keep these identifiers short? Currently all ARCH names are > 5 characters at most (except prefix, of course). The total length of the > KEYWORDS line isn't the main issue here, but tools like eshowkw or > tables in the various web interfaces. > > It is also in GLEP 53 if you need a formal reference: > "Note that no limit on the length of both fields in the keyword are > imposed. However, we cannot overemphasize our preference to keep > keywords small and sensible." It seems the discussion has gone quiet for a while now, so I take that we choose ARCH=loong over ARCH=loongarch according to GLEP 53? If that doesn't receive much objection, I'll prepare and send the first few eclass patches soon. > Ulrich