Hi, [ Please CC me in replies. I'm not subscribed to the list. ]
On 06/27/2013 19:22, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> Bet they're slower than QEMU versatile emulation on an x86. And DSA >> loves virtual machines. :-) > > This speed comparison might not be true, and I know people worry about > accuracy of emulation and being able to reproduce architecture- > specific bugs. > > The other option that has been suggested repeatedly is to put armel > chroots on ARMv7 hardware. Unaligned accesses behave differently on > v7, but they weren't consistent between different v5 implementations > (http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/Unaligned_data_access) so I don't > think this is critical. We could try setting up armel chroots on ARMv7 hardware (the armhf buildds) for experimental and maybe wheezy-backports as well. This way packages entering the next release would still be built on ARMv5 hardware, but we could see how well it works in experimental. For -backports the packages should already have been built in unstable, though there's still a small risk of bugs if built on ARMv7 hardware instead of v5. However there's currently no buildds for wheezy-backports/armel at all (as far as I know)... Ansgar -- 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/51d691dc.1060...@debian.org
