On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 09:45 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 18.04.2016 um 08:45 schrieb Guido Günther: > [...] > > > > I'm all for it (although it's easy to say for me since the most burden > > will probably be on the kernel team) and having it as experimental with > > a single sponsor seems sensible. > +1 from my side too. I guess I'm one of those armel hobbyists and I > could test the software even on real hardware. > > > > > I assume the level of sponsorship offered is reasonable to support an > > arm port? I still wonder how we could would make it simpler to have this > > support end up at the right places (i.e. LTS gets the sponsorship while > > other teams like release team, security team also have additional work)? > I also think that the opinions of the kernel team / Ben are crucial if > we want to support ARM in the future. Otherwise I would expect that > supporting ARM scales pretty well and that it mainly requires more time > for testing the software. [...]
Openblocks ships its own kernel packages for wheezy, so they won't even care about the linux package. I also don't remember spending much time on architecture-specific issues in stable updates (other than x86). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
