Re: StrongARM tactics
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok. Here's some feedback on some that I either disagree with, or don't see
> enough rationale for. (This is why, ideally, the process should involve the
> porters and the maintainers...)
Thanks. Doesn't hurt do get educated...
>>+dfsbuild: i386 alpha powerpc amd64 # [ANAIS] debian from scratch installer
> Seems like it should be portable without too much trouble to other
> architectures, if there was porter interest?
Yes, OTOH it clearly needs to be adapted to whatever it's ported to, and
there haven't been any arch additions for well over a year, so it seems
interest is limited.
How portable is scaning /dev/mem between position 0xc0000 and 0xf0000 in
512 byte blocks for some magic number as a concept?
The code probably compiles on anything, after all an implementation as a
shell script plus unix utils is provided along with the c implementation.
> Just because it's only built for these archs now doesn't mean this has to be
> true long-term.
So, how long term should something be to be included?
It looks like the file is changed every two weeks or so. My guess was
that then if changes are submitted in bulk, declaring something seeing
no porter attention for a year is OK to list in P-a-s.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/