At Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:58:42 +0100,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Summary: if people care about armel for Stretch, they should make
> noise NOW and convince people it's needed and can/should be supported
> in future.
I think it would be a pity if we wouldn't support kirkwoord devices
such as those QNAP
+++ Ian Campbell [2015-09-12 15:55 +0100]:
> The other two subarches in the kernel are orion5x and versatile. I have
> no personal interest in either. My gut suggests that orion5x (the
> Marvell variant prior to kirkwood) is the one people might more
> plausibly still be interested in, but I
On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:58 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> armel
> =
>
> [...]
> Known worries/issues:
>
> * Kernel size due to very restrictive flash space; has been a
>problem, but not believed to be affecting current users so much
>now. Several problematic sub-arches have been
3 matches
Mail list logo
