On Mon, 8 May 2017 16:03:50 +0200 Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> wrote: > * Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> [2017-05-06 14:45]: > > I'll try to take care of armel/marvell. > > I thought the plan was to drop the whole armel architecture after > stretch anyway. > > Maybe we should start that conversation on debian-arm again at some > point to see what the current consensus is. I started a thread on whether to remove armel after stretch last December [0]. And Steve agreed that he'll not push to remove armel after stretch [1]. With the toolchain issues resolved in stretch (toolchain issues mentioned here [2]), I think the main work is to keep the kernel size and initrd size (including initrd for d-i) within QNAP's limitation. Maybe we have to remove QNAP support some time before buster, it's still able to support other armel with /boot mounting in HDD) [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/12/msg00135.html [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/12/msg00329.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/12/msg00143.html Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1
Attachment:
pgp0_phmxpUBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature