Re: Debian for SuperH bootstrapping

[YAEGASHI Takeshi <t@keshi.org>]

Hi, 

At Sun, 30 Dec 2001 10:17:36 +0100,
Oliver M . Bolzer <oliver@gol.com> 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 <t@keshi.org> 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
> distribute.

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
done.

-- 
YAEGASHI Takeshi <t@keshi.org> <takeshi@yaegashi.jp> <yaegashi@dodes.org>