Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>
> > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5.
>
> As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due
> to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping
> CPU
> requirements is a good idea in general. If there are actual benefits
> to v5 as the default then bumping it could be a good idea.
IIRC some important part of the toolchain (gcc?) has bumped their
baseline to v5 quite a while back, so we are already living on borrowed
time wrt toolchain support. (This was from an ARM BoF several debconf's
ago, I can't seem to find a reference right now though).
> OTOH the
> only relevant hardware for armel these days seems to be RPi, so why
> not make armel into armhfv6 instead?
There are a large number of kirkwood (v5) based NAS and related, e.g.
*plug systems in the wild which are the ones we actually support in
practice today (with the marvell kernel flavour, which I think is the
last one standing in Stretch). Roger enumerated the h/w we have
supported in the past and which we support today in the last few
paragraphs of
<[🔎] CAEQ9gEkJ8tTH+rkji3doEM1FtFhLNoqxGc3J+2ktdoEMYoygcw@mail.gmail.com>
Ian.
Reply to: