Martin Guy a écrit : > On 7/16/10, Martin Michlmayr <[email protected]> wrote: >> * Aurelien Jarno <[email protected]> [2010-07-16 09:38]: >> >>> BTW, has anybody thought about increasing the minimum requirement for >> > the armel port, for example to armv5? Available machines has evolved, >> > maybe the port should do the same. >> >> >> Indeed. From Paul's emails, I'm getting the feeling that moving the >> armel port to armv5 and proving optimized libraries for some things >> might be the way to go. > > A company I work with is hoping to be able (finally!) to start > marketing an armv4t board we've been developing over the last years, > with Debian as the default operating system. I guess we can just > remain with lenny or squeeze... > > Being the cheapest ARM boards on the market, these tend to be used by > the long tail of hobbyists, which include potential contributors to > Debian and the OS community. > > So, the same question: what is the measured speed up for users of ARM > architectures >=5, and is it worth excluding the significant number of > users of armv4t boards, from using "the universal operating system" > Debian?
I was not aware of that. If they are some real users of an armv4t port, we should probably keep it. -- 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]
