Adrian Bunk wrote... > I'd like to get a clear picture regarding the situation of building > armel for buster on arm64, ideally moving it to arm64 hardwre soon.
JFTR, I'd appreciate if armel/armhf could continue to be part of a
release.
> 1. What issues are considered possible problems for moving building
> armel from 32bit v7 hardware to 64bit v8 hardware?
Perhaps just babble and FUD: There was (and probably still is) an issue
in powerpc: In a certain package, upstream's compile options for ppc had
higher CPU requirements than what Debian uses for that architecture. As
a result, the buildd (some big IBM POWER box) happily built the package,
but out there on a G4 the code would crash for SIGILL, same when
rebuilding on such a hardware.
Now I'm somewhat afraid this might happen again when packages for
armel/armhf are built on more recent hardware. At the same time, I'd
like to see continued support for these architectures.
If this is a concern, how to solve it? Have some native non-DSA
armel/armhf boxes where volunteers rebuild the archive and hope test
suites will catch such issues?
My 2ยข
Christoph
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
