Hi,
peter green wrote:
> As i've said before my understanding is that debian architecture
> names represent a CPU family and ABI. Minium CPU requirements have
> been changed both by derivatives (e.g. ubuntu i386 went first to
> requiring "586" and then "686") and within debian (e.g. debian i386
> went to requiring 486)
>
> Much as I do wish debian would improve support for variants with
> adjusted minium CPU requirements (and I intend to make a suggestion
> to the gcc maintainers about that, I just haven't got arround it it
> yet) I don't think a new architecture name is the way to go.
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Well given arm6 binaries will install and work perfectly on official
> armhf systems, making it a new architecture seems like a bad idea.
>
> That would be like saying i486 optimized packages should be a different
> architecture than i686 optimized packages. There isn't really a good
> reason to do that.
So what would be the consequences of redefining armhf's minimum
hardware requirements, i.e. would there a noticable performance loss
on more modern systems if armhf would be built to include armv6 in the
future?
Regards, Axel (currently thinking about buying an Olinuxino)
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
--
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/20130605193843.gb22...@sym.noone.org
