Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-02-20 Thread Paul Brook
I now have a functional patch for EABI on v4 processors. I can push it out if you're interested. I'm exceedingly interested, largely on behalf of people who are using balloon2 (and thus strongarm) in current production hardware, and would like to be able to use eabi. I can also test

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-02-02 Thread Martin Guy
2008/1/30, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: [armel]'s quality is at least matching the current arm port Could you please comment on the current status and list outstanding issues blocking the inclusion of armel in the

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-02-02 Thread Paul Brook
The disadvantage is that it requires armv4t processors, excluding older ARMv4-based systems (CATS, NetWinder, Balloon 2). The simplest way to circumvent this would be to patch the kernel to emulate the missing BX instruction. I now have a functional patch for EABI on v4 processors. I can push

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-02-02 Thread Wookey
On 2008-02-02 13:41 +, Paul Brook wrote: The disadvantage is that it requires armv4t processors, excluding older ARMv4-based systems (CATS, NetWinder, Balloon 2). The simplest way to circumvent this would be to patch the kernel to emulate the missing BX instruction. I now have a

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-02-02 Thread Joey Hess
Martin Guy wrote: Other packages either don't compile or don't work on armel, including some that are included in the repository but do not work at all, of which the most high-profile are iceweasel and iceape-browser. Is that working on arm either? IIRC it didn't. -- see shy jo

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-01-31 Thread Colin Tuckley
Riku Voipio wrote: [1] I can ofcourse only speak of myself, but AFAIK other porters agree. I think that is everyone's view, it is also good to note that ARM Ltd are actively supporting getting armel into lenny. Colin -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1903 236872 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id Debian

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-01-31 Thread Wookey
On 2008-01-31 01:22 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to have a clear commitment from the arm/armel

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-01-30 Thread Luk Claes
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: From a release team point of view, it's quite interesting if armel is going to make it into the archive before lenny. It's quality is at least matching the current arm port at the moment and after lenny (at the latest) we

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-01-30 Thread Riku Voipio
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only armel (no arm anymore)

Re: Status of armel in the archive?

2008-01-30 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-31 01:22]: [1] I can ofcourse only speak of myself, but AFAIK other porters agree. I think there's agreement on this. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?