On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 23:15, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu<iwama...@nigauri.org> wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/6/22 Bill Traynor <w...@naoi.ca>: >> >>> >>> I made a page of SH4 port. >> >> Is your page different from the link here: >> http://debian.org/ports/#unreleased which points back to >> www.linux-sh.org? > > I'll second that. > >> >>> However, these are not yet enough. >>> >>>> >>>> While at it, can we consider consensus reached to start just with sh4, >>>> ask for binary-sh removal and then if requested try to add other >>>> flavors (having learned and gained experience from the past)? >>>> >> >> What justifies SH4 first? Is there a particular piece of hardware >> based on SH4 that your interested in running DebianSH on? I don't >> particularly care what variant you target first, but I'm curious why. >> > > I do not have a particularly big reason. > If there is a reason, the reason is because I do not have a board of sh3. > And I think the user to have more sh4 than sh3.
Fair enough, those are good enough reasons. > > Do you want to support sh3? I'd love too, but alas, cannot at present. However, as time allows, I may attempt to pick this up or at the very least contribute. The only SH3 based hardware I own is a Jornada 690 though. I guess the bigger questions would be "why bother?" Given the limited number of Linux hackers I know of working on SuperH as it is, spending time on support for newer hardware would seem wiser. > If it is so, I will participate so in development with pleasure. > > Best regards, > Nobuhiro > -- > Nobuhiro Iwamatsu > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
