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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
* 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?
10 matches
Mail list logo