-----Original Message----- From: Riku Voipio <riku.voi...@iki.fi> To: csir...@yahoo.com.au Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-embed...@lists.debian.org Sent: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 22:36 Subject: Re: debootstrap and cdebootstrap vs systemd
> If you choose an old Soc vendor kernel, you effectively choose to use old >userland from the same era. Better do your business plan based on it: > "we won't upgrade userspace except for backported critical fixes and > features we REALLY need" Thanks Riku, however what's best for my userland should be up to me to figure out. Thanks to the amazing emdebian toolchain, it's trivial to build my system for any supported debian release. The Debian ecosystem also makes it trivial to rebuild packages from source, for example to make headless or "nox" versions where necessary. Coupled with a completely automated, continuous build setup (from source for non-standard bits, including boot loader & kernel) I really enjoy developing for Debian! But the software I maintain, not to mention its supporting pieces, run in places other than embedded. Maintaining two release branches in light of the ease of building and maintaining sid userland isn't an obvious choice. Finally can I just re-iterate: these are not "old" or obscure SoCs; TI and freescale each have massive sales in CPU lines that don't have >3.0 kernels. The world's biggest Qseven COM vendor doesn't have an ARM board that supports >3.0 kernels. Even gumstix, popular in the open source scene, their newest boards don't have kernels >3.5.
