Below is a message I sent off to the RPM development mailing list. The
folks at RedHat said it was reasonable, but I just wanted to be sure that
I got it right. Many of you understand MIPS architectures better than I,
and we don't want to be making a mistake.
Is the creation of a mipsel type reasonable?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex deVries <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: RPM-List <email@example.com>
Subject: A question about architecture and byte order.
I *think* there might be an issue with MIPS architecture RPMs, but I want
to make sure I get things right.
There are two branches of machines that have MIPS processors. The first
is little endian, and it contains things like Acer Pica and Mips Magnum.
The second is big endian, and has things like my SGI Indy. I'm unclear
if there are some architectures that will run both.
Now, the issue is that there aren't distinct architecture definitions for
mips (big endian) and mipsel (little endian). They aren't binary
compatible, so it does seem to me that there should be an entry like:
arch_canon: mipsel: mipsel 11
Am I wrong on this?
 *almost* running srpms of RedHat 5.
Alex deVries Rent this space for a $5 donation
System Administrator to EngSoc per day.
The EngSoc Project Send spam to firstname.lastname@example.org.