On Thursday 15 July 2010 17:34:01 Martin Guy wrote: > I still doubt that the disruption and extra work for the community of > Debian package maintainers, and the lower quality of the resulting > archive, is worth the small increment in speed that is promised. I > hope
30% *measured* (vs promised) speed increase is nothing to sneer at on low-end cpus like Cortex-A8 is. This speed increase might just make the difference from a jerky movie playback to a fluid one, or it might make desktop experience just a bit more pleasant -yes, there is a LOT of floating point work on the desktop (eg. SVG icon rendering). Actually, come to think of it, according to some people here, Debian uses soft (not even softfp) so the speed difference of the fp applications of the new port to the *existing* Debian port (armel) would be HUGE (more than 10x faster, according to my measurements). It's not a matter of comparing this port to an existing hardfloat port -like OpenEmbedded or Gentoo, or whatever, it's offering a better choice for ARM users who want to use Debian. Anyway, this is beside the point. We're doing it, one way or the other, the question here is if Debian itself would be interested to accomodate such a port -if it becomes successful. If one of the steps needed for Debian to do so is picking the right name, I'm all for it -in fact I'd go as far as choose armhf right now, but I'll get back on that a bit later. Regards Konstantinos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201007151820.07808.mar...@genesi-usa.com
