Hi John, John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag.
That is not even close to the truth, as anyone who actually looks at the branches (or tries to build them) can easily see. John, I appreciate your preliminary work on 'wip-arm', and I credited you in the final patch on 'wip-armhf', but you didn't get very far. > I'm not an ARM expert, so I don't know how important that setting is. I assuming that the Debian armhf developers are far more knowledgeable than either of us, so I followed their lead. There is some discussion here: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort/VfpComparison > But I do know that there are many different fpus - if we are going to > have a new branch for every combination of flags then there are going > to be rather a lot of branches. First of all, the branch is temporary. Like mips64el before it, this branch will be merged into 'core-updates' and 'master' when it's ready. I don't think we need a 'system' for every combination of flags. We should just find a small number of "sweet spots" in the tradeoff between minimum requirements vs performance. IMO, for 32-bit ARM, two systems should be enough: armhf, and maybe another one (armel?) that works on lower-end processors. Other opinions? Mark