Re: ARMEL in Buster CPU_Tag, instruction set
On 7/26/19 12:29 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> The raise to ARMv5T was necessary to keep armel supported. It wouldn't have been
> possible to keep the port if had let it at ARMv4T.
>
> Adrian
That's an understandable choice path.
In my case, which is not atypical, I have an old board, I need software for that old
board. When I go to a newer CPU using hardware design, I will skip all the way to arm64.
But until then, I have to support the old board. "Kind of old" support is of no value to
me since the old board's CPU is a done deal (for the time being). That was the other
choice path, which as you say would have meant dropping some packages. It goes without
saying that I don't need all the packages.
So if I use Debian for this old board, as opposed to what I am using now, it must be stretch.
Reply to: