Package Details: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc-12.3-bin 12.3-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc-12.3-bin
Description: GNU Cross Compilation Toolchain for AArch64 (GCC 12.3)
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL, LGPL
Conflicts: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc, aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc-10.3-bin, aarch64-none-linux-gnu-gcc-9.2-bin
Submitter: tiagoporsch
Maintainer: tiagoporsch
Last Packager: tiagoporsch
Votes: 0
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2023-11-01 20:05 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-11-01 20:05 (UTC)

Latest Comments

tiagoporsch commented on 2024-01-29 00:24 (UTC)

Hello paulbarker, I'll answer your questions!

1) The version number in the package was a deliberate choice! I needed specifically version 12.3 for a project, and after seeing I thought the best way to do this was by creating a similar package, and then pushed it to the AUR because why not! Maybe we could create another package, without the version number in the name.

2) Do you mean using 12.3.Rel1 in the package name? If we do this it would be good to update the previously cited package as well.

3) Right! I did not notice that, thank you!

4) I chose this package name because the files that it installs (at least this specific version) start with aarch64-none-linux-gnu-. Do newer versions come named differently?

paulbarker commented on 2024-01-28 12:05 (UTC)

Thanks for packaging this! I have a few minor questions:

1) Could we drop the version number from the package name so that it's easy to upgrade when a new ARM GNU Toolchain is released? The 13.2.Rel1 version has now been released so it'd be great to get this updated.

2) We should use the exact upstream version string 12.3.Rel1 to avoid confusion.

3) The package currently installs /usr/license.txt, I recommend removing this in the package() function. Replacing rm -f ${pkgdir}/usr/*-manifest.txt with rm -f ${pkgdir}/usr/*.txt works for me.

4) The releases on are named "Arm GNU Toolchain" with all archives named arm-gnu-toolchain-*. I think this AUR package should follow that naming convention.

I've made similar suggestions on It'd be great to get alignment between these toolchain packages