Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Monday, 28 August 2017 16:23:24 BST W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : > > On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > >> As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM > >> (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 10:11 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > This depends on the build process: In my case we build in a > clean environment with all build dependencies pre-installed. > Remember, this is not a generic Debian build process, but a > specialised one for certain packages. I'm pretty sure the

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-08-28 19:16, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 08/28/2017 06:30 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > But my experience is quiet good with this: > > > > ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/arm-linux-gnueabi- dpkg-buildpackage > > -rfakeroot -aarmel ... > > > > I don't remember what the ARCH

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 07:57 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due >> to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping >> CPU >> requirements is a good idea in general. If there are actual benefits >> to v5 as the default then

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due > to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 06:30 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > AFAIK, there is no policy requiring that packages can be cross-build. We are working on something like that, but it's a larger goal. Basically, we're planning to have cross-buildds which will additionally test packages for cross-buidability. One

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : We've done so for Jessie, but it is a rather tedious manual process and one which starts eroding the benefit of project soak on a supported installation footprint. A relief I didn't call out previously is these figures are physical sizes. We can

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 10:23 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : >> On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >>> As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM >>> (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on such hardware >>>

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on such hardware in my experience. It depends on your applications, of course.

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : >> We probably should be leveraging a cross built embedded class distro which >> would place us in that mainstream and solve many of our logistical problems. > > As long as you have enough flash memory

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

> Somebodies quoteing is broken, I didn't write that. I believe Alan Corey > did. Yes, I'm in Gmail, I quote manually by copying and pasting >> I've not really bothered with HAM stuff since I was playing with >> Packet Radio before dial-up Internet became a thing, but I find your >> claim that

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : We probably should be leveraging a cross built embedded class distro which would place us in that mainstream and solve many of our logistical problems. As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM (at least 64 MiB, better 128

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/27/2017 07:36 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2017-08-28 06:53, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> >>> However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. >> As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due >> to the CPU

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

I have a couple of SDR USB Dongles that work pretty nicely out of the box with GNU Radio. The variant I have are from here http://www.nooelec.com/store/sdr.html Nige On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Philip Hands wrote: > Gene Heskett writes: > > > On

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

Gene Heskett writes: > On Monday 28 August 2017 07:26:54 Philip Hands wrote: > >> Gene Heskett writes: >> >> ... >> >> >> There are about a dozen SDR programs for WIindows, almost nothing >> >> for Unix. >> > Somebodies quoteing is broken, I didn't

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

On Monday 28 August 2017 07:26:54 Philip Hands wrote: > Gene Heskett writes: > > ... > > >> There are about a dozen SDR programs for WIindows, almost nothing > >> for Unix. > Somebodies quoteing is broken, I didn't write that. I believe Alan Corey did. > I've not really

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

Gene Heskett writes: ... >> There are about a dozen SDR programs for WIindows, almost nothing for >> Unix. I've not really bothered with HAM stuff since I was playing with Packet Radio before dial-up Internet became a thing, but I find your claim that there's nothing much

Re: contemplating conversion of an r-pi3b based system to a rock64

On Monday 28 August 2017 00:28:31 Alan Corey wrote: > Yes, software defined radio, it's the cat's meow. I have 3 of the $20 > RTL2832 dongles, which aren't wonderful but they mostly work, and tune > about 25-1300 MHz. They were originally designed as DVB devices for > TV. They can also get

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 28/08/17 09:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 08/28/2017 12:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote: OTOH the only relevant hardware for armel these days seems to be RPi, so why not make armel into armhfv6 instead? Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march set to ARMv6?

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 12:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > OTOH the only relevant hardware for armel these days seems > to be RPi, so why not make armel into armhfv6 instead? Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march set to ARMv6? Bumping armel from soft-fp to ARMv6 hard-fp doesn't