Konstantinos Margaritis a écrit : > On Friday 16 July 2010 10:47:40 Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> Have this 30% have actually been measured on such applications? > > how can I benchmark the desktop? It feels faster, that's definite. > >> If softfp is already 10x faster, does the additional 30% between softfp >> and hardfp really worth it? Do we need to switch to hardfp instead of >> softfp, while only the second one needs a new port? > > No, no, softfp is faster than _soft_, which is, well, irrelevant here. We're > not comparing to soft, we're comparing softfp vs hardfp. The point is that > the > cpus in the particular family are more than able to perform much better than > they are right now, and it's only a case of recompilation.
Why are we comparing softfp vs hardfp? We should compare the existing armel port, that is soft, vs both softfp and hardfp. >> Picking the right name is probably lest than 0.0001% of the work... > > Yes, but we seem to get stuck even there. Anyway, assuming we pick a name > that > Debian likes, would Debian assist us and -if successful- eventually adopt the > port? > I'm aware of the hard work needed, but imho, it's more than worth it. > What do you call Debian exactly? Experience shows that maintainers usually do not care about a new port until it blocks migration to testing. For the release team and ftpmaster point of view, the best is probably to ask them first. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
