Re: Proposal - take 2

Hi Phil,

>How different is the h2200 kernel from the generic ipaqpxa config? It
>would be good to start including h2200 support in ipaqpxa as soon as
>possible.
>
>
>
h2200 support is already declared in the standard ipaqpxa config. This
means we can already use the same kernel package as other devices,
provided h2200 support was enable in it. However, as our kernel code is
updated often, we may need to make our own builds to get the latest
greatest features.

>> * If we want to compile packages for pxa only, we can start a new
>> pxa feed for Familiar. That will be needed sooner or later. All
>> other devices based on pxa will enjoy that too.
>>
>>
>
>There shouldn't even be a need to make a new feed. Ipkg supports having
>the same package built for multiple architectures within a single feed,
>and will automatically select the most suitable candidate at install
>time.
>
Excellent!

>You just need to make sure that the Architecture: field is set
>appropriately, then upload to unstable as usual. I'd encourage people
>to think twice before doing this, though, and only make PXA-specific
>packages when there is a genuine benefit in doing so.
>
>

You mean that compiling for pxa too is more work, sometimes not worth
the effort, for the one who does the extra compile job, right? Are there
other costs? Once the pxa compiler toolchain is checked, does this imply
extra testing work too? I don't think so...

Benchmarks would be useful...

Cheers,

    Michael.

-- 
Michael Opdenacker
http://opdenacker.org/