Re: question for ARM porters: incomplete arm v3 support in etch?
On 2006-10-30 10:00 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > The decision for dropping support for an older subarch is for the porters to
> > make; though dropping the subarch which still provides a number of the
> > autobuilders is probably not a great idea.
>
> None of the ARM autobuilders are v3 anymore. Dropping v4 support would
> be a bad idea, since netwinders make up a fairly large part of the
> installed base, but I don't think anybody is even considering that.
>
> Dropping v3 does sound like a good idea to me though.
Yes. I think the time has come for arm to drop v3. It might have been
better to anounce this earlier, but never mind.
I suggest leaving the default build remaining on v3 for now (simply to avoid
potentially-disruptive change at this stage of the release cycle), but
agree that 'doesn't build for v3' is not longer an RC bug.
After this release we should change the default gcc build to be v4.
Any objections?
Wookey
--
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://wookware.org/
Reply to: