Re: question for ARM porters: incomplete arm v3 support in etch?
In message <[🔎] 20061029161635.GA28648@buici.com>
Marc Singer <elf@buici.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:50:44PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm inclined to tag 394418 etch-ignore, because most of the arm buildds (all
> > of the faster ones) are capable of handling newer instruction sets, and the
> > autobuilder for stable-security on arm is among those that can. But before
> > I do that, I want to confirm: do the ARM porters consider this reasonable?
> > Should support for arm v3 systems be considered release-critical on this
> > architecture? And if so, is someone available to work on fixing mono's code
> > generation, or would mono need to be dropped from arm for etch?
>
> No objections.
>
> AFAICT, the popularity of Debian/ARM is due to the recent crop of
> IXP42x's. The oldest hardware that I have is ARM720, which is also
> v4.
>
> OTOH, we've carried 386 for a long time and there are so few of those
> around anymore. I'd prefer not worrying about the v3 machines, but
> our policy tends to be inclusive.
With respect to the above and what Wookey has said, I'd agree. I have
two RiscPCs on the shelf, and did some of the most recent support for
these machines in Debian - which was some years ago. Anyone who wants
good Linux support on RiscPCs will have much better luck with Slackware:
http://www.armedslack.org/
Not least because it was developed on a RiscPC. I've also just donated
a RiscPC to a Gentoo developer, so there might be some support there.
--
Peter Naulls - peter@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/
Reply to: