+++ 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 change of minimum CPU requirements. > While it may reduce confusion it would mean that packages that > should be able to be mixed won't be able to be and it would also > mean no upgrade path for existing raspbian users.
Indeed. Bad plan. I don't think there is anything stopping us hosting a debian-ports armhf that's just built for arm/v6/vfp2. > >do you get many bug reports that result from people having added in armhf > >from Debian (or Ubuntu, etc.) into apt sources not realising it is not > >compatible with the Pi? > I can't think of any bug reports as such. I've seen the odd person > on IRC and the forums who has broken their system by doing that but > it doesn't seem terriblly common. The risk of this might go up as debian-ports and debian are less obviously different than raspbian and debian, but it's still a matter of telling RPi users to simply not do this. > One thing we do is deliberately exclude the debian archive keyring > from our repository specifically to discourage people from > installing packages from debian. OK, that should still work, although if we just rebuild 'standard debian', at debian-ports, I'm not sure if there is a mechanism for this, so we might lose this safety feature. Something with dpkg-vendor might do the trick. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
