+++ Michael Cree [2013-09-13 20:29 +1200]:
> I'm not a DD, thus am no authority on these matters, nevertheless it
> would surprise me to see an armv6 port being permitted on Debian-Ports
> with the arch name 'armhf'.
Well, it's just a matter of whether it's actually a sensible plan or
not, and mos
+++ peter green [2013-09-03 20:22 +0100]:
> Michael Cree wrote:
> >I would presume though that to be hosted at debian-ports a new
> >architecture tag would be needed to avoid confusion with armhf.
> As I have said before i'm strongly against the idea of using a new
> architecture name for a mere ch
Michael Cree wrote:
Does not multiarch enable that to be done?
Multiarch is for something slighty different, multiarch is for having
binaries that use different ABIs installed on the same system.
By giving raspbian a new architecture name (and hence probablly also a
new triplet) we would be p
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM, John Masseria wrote:
> But does this mean that armhf will move from ARMv7 to ARMv8?
armhf will remain as-is and we will also add an arm64 port:
https://wiki.debian.org/Arm64Port
http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/architecture.php?a=arm64&suite=sid
> Or is ARM
Great news!
But does this mean that armhf will move from ARMv7 to ARMv8?
Or is ARMv7 upward compatible with ARMv8, meaning an ARMv8 processor can
natively run ARMv7 compiled binaries?
Apologies for asking newbie questions ...
On Sep 12, 2013 1:12 PM, "Jo Shields" wrote:
> It took a while, but
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:22:10PM +0100, peter green wrote:
> Michael Cree wrote:
> >I would presume though that to be hosted at debian-ports a new
> >architecture tag would be needed to avoid confusion with armhf.
> As I have said before i'm strongly against the idea of using a new
> architecture
6 matches
Mail list logo
