On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:30:19PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 18.02.2011 11:13, Guillem Jover wrote: > >[ CCing Matthias, as I'd like your opinion on my proposed solution > > involving some Debian gcc changes. ] > The armhf patch for gcc looks ok, however I would like to see this > better addressed in Linaro and/or upstream. I'm not sure how Linaro could better address this, short of persuading upstream to allocate a separate triplet for armhf - which has been explicitly refused on the upstream mailing list. Do you have something else in mind here? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature