[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian ARM meeting in Cambridge



Peter Naulls wrote:

I've got someone here who'd like a meeting with Debian ARM developers
in the Cambridge area.  The topic is somewhat close to what Wookey
mentioned on the Debian ARM list a while again regarding his meeting
with ARM.  That is, potential sponsorship of Debian projects.

It will be a very much informal affair, probably in some Cambridge pub
sometime next week (weekend is not out of the question), and although
the focus is ARM, anyone with a general interest in Debian development
would be encouraged to also come.

If you're interested in coming, and there's any day/time you can't
make, drop me an email, and I'll see what I can do to keep everyone
happy.


Hello Peter,

Is this support for Debian-arm based PC and PDA's only, or will the support
include many of the arm cores, that are now available from a myriad of channels, such as microcontroller manufacturers, System on Chip vendors and IP core vendors for FPGA?

My interests are more aligned with Debian-arm for development tools and consolidation of building kernels and applications for embedded systems, particularly 2.6.x based systems.
Arm as recently acquired Trisend, a company that offers a System On Chip,
including an arm-7. Will support for this product line be included as part of the
debian-arm effort? We, have several products out on this SOC, but,
support for the Microsoft based tools are very weak, to the point that we cannot
get customer's to risk a new product design on that processor, currently.

Any infomation Arm wants to provide on that SOC, and hundreds of other ARM*
offerings, for Embedded support, via Debian, is most welcome, in addition to
a roadmap for Arm +2.6.x embedded kernels.

Transient commercial tool offerings, are not very reassuring to companies that are considering ARM Projects. ARM+2.6_embedded_linux_kernel+Debian development tools would go a long way to atrracting more converts to the arm families of processors.


James



Reply to: