Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:21:42AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 00:48:09 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The arm-linux-gnueabi is not that well defined, so it may include the hard float
> > variant as well. However Debian default to armv4t, while the default
> > configuration for upstream is armv5. However with the selected defaults
> > Debian's libstdc++::future module is not complete and causes build failures on
> > this architecture (same for sparc).
>
> This sounds as though armhf might in fact be better-supported than armel
> in practice, because it targets armv7 which is an armv5 superset.
>
> Devil's advocate: what supported devices would be lost if armel's baseline
> advanced from armv4t to armv5, in much the same way that x86's baseline
> recently advanced to i686?
https://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2016/07/msg00079.html
I see that what you propose has been considered, but the "favoured option"
is to drop armel after stretch altogether.
> (Perhaps I'm just being selfish here, because my only armel device is a
> Kirkwood, which I'm fairly sure is v5 and would survive this change.)
Thus you might want to read that announcement. On the other hand, it's not
like stretch's support ends tomorrow (it hasn't even begun...), so your
device will probably go kaputt or get replaced way before then.
--
Second "wet cat laying down on a powered-on box-less SoC on the desk" close
shave in a week. Protect your ARMs, folks!
Reply to: