Re: Debian for SuperH bootstrapping
At Sun, 30 Dec 2001 10:17:36 +0100,
Oliver M . Bolzer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [ mail crossposted to debian-project as this might interest
> other people, too. Please reply to debian-superh ]
Thanks for your attention.
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:21:25AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi <email@example.com> wrote...
> > As the recent discussions in SuperH lists, we should have four
> > different architectures for SuperH, namely sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb.
> > With this scheme NIIBE Yutaka has maintained the newer deb set seen at
> > ftp://ftp.m17n.org/pub/super-h/testing/debian-011210/.
> In general, i do agree that there is need for all 4 sub architectures, but
> I don't think the need is big enough for the cost of Debian distributing
> all 4 flavours. By cost I specifically don't mean compile time or maintainer
> work load (if somebody wants to do it, he/she should do it), but things like
> mirror diskspace and bandwidth. I don't think that there will be more than
> a handfull of people using the exotic variants (sh.eb ? )
> Providing the infrastructure for people who want to compile their own
> packages is certainly good, so we should make the changes to dpkg and family
> but we should SERIOUSLY consider, if we want to provide all 4 variants
> as the Debian project.
Yes, that's my point too.
> So, how would the members of the debian-suoerh list order
> sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb according to importance and number of potential users?
> Then we can debate how many and which subarchitectures we compile and
sh3 > sh4 >>>> sh3eb, sh4eb, I think.
sh3 covers many Windows CE based devices including HP Jornada
620/680/690. And there are many embedded boards using sh3.
I understand there is a potential demand for sh4 from many Dreamcast
owners, but this arch can also run sh3 distribution as so far we have
YAEGASHI Takeshi <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>