On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:45:22PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Hi Alastair,
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:50:30AM +0000, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > >Yes, thanka for this patch. I'm reluctant to consider that binaries built on > >armhf failing on arm64 is an _RC Bug_, but its definitely undesirable. > It's not *yet* RC, but it's going to go that way soon. Our plan is to > switch to building for armel and armhf using arm64 machines before too > long, which would reliably break all packages with bugs like this. If it were only about the buildds, then Alastair's solution (disabling the testsuite on this arch), though suboptimal, would probably be acceptable. But I think it is increasingly likely that people who are running armhf Debian binaries will be doing so on 64-bit chips with 64-bit kernels, where unaligned fixups will not happen. This is also the configuration that android 32-bit kernels shipped in since forever. So there is a small but significant and increasing set of configurations where armhf binaries need to avoid unalign access in order to be useful. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
