From ea2bff933eb3557ca797d59a5abcef72c2699d49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://joeyh.name/" Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:58:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- .../comment_1_9ca7ff6cb1f5dfc1e5ce8527e7e0a45f._comment | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/armhf_binary/comment_1_9ca7ff6cb1f5dfc1e5ce8527e7e0a45f._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/armhf_binary/comment_1_9ca7ff6cb1f5dfc1e5ce8527e7e0a45f._comment b/doc/forum/armhf_binary/comment_1_9ca7ff6cb1f5dfc1e5ce8527e7e0a45f._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9a1e3a4af5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/armhf_binary/comment_1_9ca7ff6cb1f5dfc1e5ce8527e7e0a45f._comment @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://joeyh.name/" + ip="209.250.56.7" + subject="comment 1" + date="2014-08-15T15:58:02Z" + content=""" +The standalone armel build should work fine on armhf, assuming that the kernel supports EABI, which I'm pretty sure it does (or multiarch armel would not work). +"""]]