Re: ARM on the ports page
+++ Steve Langasek [2011-03-01 08:25 -0800]:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 03:57:54PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> > Perhaps add that armhf matches Ubuntu and Linaro 'arm' ports, whilst
> > armel in Ubuntu is not the same as armel in Debian?
> Hum, that's confusing and not true in various ways. The Ubuntu armel port
> (there is no Ubuntu 'arm' port) is binary-compatible with the Debian armel
> port, it is *not* binary-compatible with the armhf port; the minimum
> supported hardware for armel is different between Debian and Ubuntu, but
> then, this is true of the i386 port also; and Linaro doesn't have any
> "ports" as it's not a distro... :)
Sorry, yes, I didn't express that very well at all. The Ubuntu armel
port is binary-compatible, but built for a different 'flavour'
(thumb2, and v-something newer than 4t, I think v7?), so won't run on
older hardware. The forthcoming ubuntu armhf port will be the same
flavour as the Debian one (probably).
I was thinking it might be helpful to point out that there were
differences so people weren't suprised, but actually, on balance it's
probably much better not to say anything about it on this very
high-level view page. People aren't supposed to be mixing binary
packages between distros anyway...
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM