With #408780 filed I suppose I should bring this up here. The armel architecture is regular arm, but it's a new ABI that is incompatable with current arm binaries. The arm porters decided a whole new architecture is the only sane way to go as a mixture of old and new ABI debs claiming the same architecture would be deadly. See http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort for details. Changes in d-i for this will mostly be limited to adding "armel" after "arm" in the architecture lists. I think that such changes, and other trivial uses of the armel name could be committed now as they're found. Anyone against that? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature