Hello Sebastian,
(Apologies for delay, I starting drafting the email, but I had to
leave and never got back to it until now)
> Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o?
There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
have at least one official release with time64 support.
There were other comments to keep architecture for environmental
reasons, to keep supporting old devices that are still in the field,
there are lots of {sheeva,dream,*}plugs based around Marvell's
kirkwood and many NAS devices based on Orion chipsets. Martin Michmayr
requested a readdition of OpenRD in stable debian-installer
(https://bugs.debian.org/1068898), maybe nice to keep for this one
last release.
There was also a suggestion to mark non-for-us or stop building large
packages that may not be that useful in the armel architecture, such
LibreOffice, possibly some desktops, etc.. since armel is mostly meant
for embedded and headless devices (may be some with small
screen/display).
> What is the
> opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed for armel
> (added to CC)?
The two porters listed in the arch qualification page missed the thread.
However, since packages are building on arm64 hardware, until the
hardware is capable of doing so, we should at least try to keep armel
for the Trixie release.
Regards
--
Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
