On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 07:35:24AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:27:19PM +1100, Simon Wise wrote:
> > >>My understanding is that both the rpi0 and rpi1 are based on a ARMv6
> > >>chip, which makes them closer to armel than to armhf. So, I'm afraid
> > >>you're stuck with raspbian for now.
> >
> > raspbian is in between armel and armhf because debian armel is (or was then)
> > compiled without hard float support while debian armhf is compiled for arm7
> > ... so since PIs are arm6 with FPU neither is suitable ... raspbian is
> > compiled to suit PIs.
>
> Actually, armel _is_ perfectly suitable, just a bit slower. However,
> rapbian guys wanted to use all the computing power of pi's CPU, and thus
> used a debased version of armhf. They really should have named the
> architecture different.
>

That's my point. Debian armhf is something quite specific (basically,
at least ARMv7 + VFPU3), and Debian armel is something else, still
specific (ARM with soft FPU, so almost anything else), while Raspbian
is "branded" armhf but is neither, since it is compiled for
ARMv6+VFPU2, as I found out googling around. They should have called
it differently.

The problem wouldn't be compiling the packages, which can be done with
a cross-compiler + toolchain on any more powerful piece of hw, but
perhaps putting together an entire port for such a specific target,
although it is a quite popular one.

HND

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]