On Friday 16 July 2010 11:11:39 Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Why are we comparing softfp vs hardfp? We should compare the existing > armel port, that is soft, vs both softfp and hardfp.
Er, that's the whole point of the discussion. There is no question about having a new soft port, but a hardfp port -and some people argued that softfp is equally good and compatible, so instead of a new hardfp port, Debian could just as well enable softfp and get almost as good performance. The existing armel port has its userbase, but now with modern and more powerful ARM cpus around, we should at least examine the potential of a new and more optimized port. Hence the need -at least on our side- of the hardfp port. > 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. The discussion originated here in this list -and -dpkg- first. I guess when the port is in a semi-working order, we could ask release and ftpmaster, but until then, I'm pretty sure their answer would be "tell us when you have something ready and we'll see if there is demand for this port" or something similar. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
