Re: Arm bof and raspbian.
+++ peter green [2013-09-03 20:22 +0100]:
> Michael Cree wrote:
> >I would presume though that to be hosted at debian-ports a new
> >architecture tag would be needed to avoid confusion with armhf.
> As I have said before i'm strongly against the idea of using a new
> architecture name for a mere change of minimum CPU requirements.
> While it may reduce confusion it would mean that packages that
> should be able to be mixed won't be able to be and it would also
> mean no upgrade path for existing raspbian users.
Indeed. Bad plan.
I don't think there is anything stopping us hosting a debian-ports
armhf that's just built for arm/v6/vfp2.
> >do you get many bug reports that result from people having added in armhf
> >from Debian (or Ubuntu, etc.) into apt sources not realising it is not
> >compatible with the Pi?
> I can't think of any bug reports as such. I've seen the odd person
> on IRC and the forums who has broken their system by doing that but
> it doesn't seem terriblly common.
The risk of this might go up as debian-ports and debian are less obviously
different than raspbian and debian, but it's still a matter of telling
RPi users to simply not do this.
> One thing we do is deliberately exclude the debian archive keyring
> from our repository specifically to discourage people from
> installing packages from debian.
OK, that should still work, although if we just rebuild 'standard
debian', at debian-ports, I'm not sure if there is a mechanism for
this, so we might lose this safety feature. Something with dpkg-vendor
might do the trick.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: