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

Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant

The tricky-bit here is that instruction-set extensions (VFP3, thumb2,
NEON) and instruction set versions (v4, v5, v6a, v7) can also be
incompatible in the sense that they won't run on hardware without
those features. But I really think we should try to deal with that by
correctly decorating ELF headers and making sure that the loaders and
dpkg 'DTRT' in terms of selecting compatible stuff. Not create an arch
for every combination.

But then doesn't that mean that everything is "armel", so we never have a hope of having Debian officially support more than one combination?

I'm ok with that, actually--- an ecosystem of unofficial "armel" repositories cropping up containing optimized packages for specific configurations.  Especially if it's true that Debian won't officially support much more than armeb/armel.

Bill Gatliff

Reply to: