On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:33:54PM +0100, martinwguy wrote: > On 7 February 2013 19:58, Mike Thompson <mpthomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 06:42:20PM +0100, martinwguy wrote: > >> > For example, the armv6 armhf port for the Raspberry Pi in armhf/V6.
> >> The wilful incompatibility of Debian derivatives should not restrict > >> what Debian does. > > Ideally, I would love to see Raspbian folded back into the Debian Project, > > but I realize this won't happen for a variety of reasons. > There is a way: for Debian armhf to re-target on v6 in a future release. > That would break none of the existing installations and make Debian > more Universal as per its manifesto. Debian already has a perfectly good port capable of running on the Pi - the armel port. So there's no difference in universality. But the Pi enthusiasts didn't think this was good enough, and wanted one optimized for their particular chipset. > With hindsight it would have been better for Debian armhf to have > targetted on the lowest arch version that almost always had a VFP unit, > but that forward path is easy. > It seems a net win compared to a few % extra speed in FPU-intensive > apps on v7+ CPUs. The v7+ CPUs far outnumber the v6 CPUs, of which there's only one platform that anyone is interested in (the RPi). Amortizing that few % speed improvement across the whole range of devices armhf runs on adds up to a big deal. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
