On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due > to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping > CPU > requirements is a good idea in general. If there are actual benefits > to v5 as the default then bumping it could be a good idea.
IIRC some important part of the toolchain (gcc?) has bumped their baseline to v5 quite a while back, so we are already living on borrowed time wrt toolchain support. (This was from an ARM BoF several debconf's ago, I can't seem to find a reference right now though). > OTOH the > only relevant hardware for armel these days seems to be RPi, so why > not make armel into armhfv6 instead? There are a large number of kirkwood (v5) based NAS and related, e.g. *plug systems in the wild which are the ones we actually support in practice today (with the marvell kernel flavour, which I think is the last one standing in Stretch). Roger enumerated the h/w we have supported in the past and which we support today in the last few paragraphs of <caeq9gekj8tth+rkji3doem1ftfhlnoqxgc3j+2ktdoemyoy...@mail.gmail.com> Ian.
