On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 12:43:19PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>...
> What is the opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed
> for armel
>...
I am not in favour of removing armel in trixie.
> Cheers
cu
Adrian
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:53:44PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release?
> >
> > Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o? What is the
> > opinion of the two por
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 05:18:15PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
>...
> 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 an
Plus 1 from me!
Rick
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, at 1:05 AM, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hello Hector,
> thanks for bringing this up!
>
> On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
>> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
>> have at least one official release with time64 suppor
On 2024-08-22 10:05, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Hello Hector,
> thanks for bringing this up!
¡Gracias, Héctor!
> On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
>> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
>> have at least one official release with time64 support.
>
> FWIW I thi
Hello Hector,
thanks for bringing this up!
On 2024-08-21 05:18, Hector Oron wrote:
> There was a compelling reason to do at least one more armel release to
> have at least one official release with time64 support.
FWIW I think this makes a lot of sense: have one stable release with
time64 support
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:18 AM Hector Oron wrote:
>
> [...]
> 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
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 t
Hi,
On 15-08-2024 20:35, Martin wrote:
What would be the best way, esp. for people outside of Debian, to always
know about such problems? And not only read about it, when it's already
solved?
Ideally bug affecting specific architectures should have the right
usertags. I believe in this case t
On 2024-08-13 20:53, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> fakeroot, a notable key part of the infrastructure required to build
> packages, FTBFS on armel and armhf since March, due to t64 changes
> on these architectures.
>
> I think this is indicative of the developer interest in armel and
> armhf and the
Hi,
> On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release?
>
> Was there a conclusion to the discussion on d-arm@l.d.o? What is the
> opinion of the two porters that we currently have listed for armel
> (added to CC)?
fakeroot, a notable
Hi Héctor
On 2024-08-01 07:55:15 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> [ {debian-kernel,debian-boot,debian-release}@d.o are in Bcc so they
> can track follow up emails at debian-arm ML if interested. ]
>
> Dear fellow developers,
>
> Debian Installer no longer produces daily builds for this platform:
> -
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, at 16:27, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 16:21 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Most of issues with armel packages are about libatomic link
>> time requirements, and about applications that hardcode armv7
>> or vfp instruction extensions.
>
> Code that h
On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 16:21 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I believe the builds are all done on arm64 hardware, and the table
> lists the same issue for available hardware on armel, armhf and arm64.
>
> There are a few instructions that armel binaries can use that
> are missing on armv8 hardware (c
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, at 13:54, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 13:03 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
>> > It's certainly not easy to determine the actual usage statistics, but as
>> > long as there
>> > is a considerable user base, I think dropping support for hardware because
Hi Hector,
On Tue, 2024-08-06 at 13:03 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> > It's certainly not easy to determine the actual usage statistics, but as
> > long as there
> > is a considerable user base, I think dropping support for hardware because
> > it's old
> > doesn't sound right to me.
>
> The main
Hello Adrian,
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 09:39, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> > Should Debian drop armel from the upcoming Debian release?
>
> While I understand the reasoning behind it, also having read Arnd's mail, I
> don't
> understand why these decisions rarely consider the environment and
Héllo all.Totally agreed, dropping any Armel for long time reason and manufacturers support may apply to all arm64 also.I really think it is a non urgent need but a hacking revival hardware possibility been just stopped...I still got sheeva plugs being easily IOT based reworked, so, dropping them m
On 2024-08-01 10:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Most of the current users are probably fine with armel
> being moved from a release architecture to ports, but from
> a user perspective I also think it would be nice to do
> that after Trixie is out, so that there is at least one
> official release with
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, at 07:55, Hector Oron wrote:
> [ {debian-kernel,debian-boot,debian-release}@d.o are in Bcc so they
> can track follow up emails at debian-arm ML if interested. ]
>
> Dear fellow developers,
>
> Debian Installer no longer produces daily builds for this platform:
> - https://d-i.
Hi Hector,
On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 07:55 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Upstream projects, ARM companies which I was able to check with, do
> not care that much about maintaining old code for ARMv5t chipsets,
> therefore supporting it is more and more costly resource wise (not
> only in Debian).
>
> T
21 matches
Mail list logo
