Hi, At Sun, 30 Dec 2001 10:17:36 +0100, Oliver M . Bolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ mail crossposted to debian-project as this might interest > other people, too. Please reply to debian-superh ] Thanks for your attention. > On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 07:21:25AM +0900, YAEGASHI Takeshi <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote... > > > As the recent discussions in SuperH lists, we should have four > > different architectures for SuperH, namely sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb. > > With this scheme NIIBE Yutaka has maintained the newer deb set seen at > > ftp://ftp.m17n.org/pub/super-h/testing/debian-011210/. > > In general, i do agree that there is need for all 4 sub architectures, but > I don't think the need is big enough for the cost of Debian distributing > all 4 flavours. By cost I specifically don't mean compile time or maintainer > work load (if somebody wants to do it, he/she should do it), but things like > mirror diskspace and bandwidth. I don't think that there will be more than > a handfull of people using the exotic variants (sh.eb ? ) > > Providing the infrastructure for people who want to compile their own > packages is certainly good, so we should make the changes to dpkg and family > but we should SERIOUSLY consider, if we want to provide all 4 variants > as the Debian project. Yes, that's my point too. > So, how would the members of the debian-suoerh list order > sh3, sh4, sh3eb, sh4eb according to importance and number of potential users? > Then we can debate how many and which subarchitectures we compile and > distribute. sh3 > sh4 >>>> sh3eb, sh4eb, I think. sh3 covers many Windows CE based devices including HP Jornada 620/680/690. And there are many embedded boards using sh3. I understand there is a potential demand for sh4 from many Dreamcast owners, but this arch can also run sh3 distribution as so far we have done. -- YAEGASHI Takeshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
