skrll@ wrote: > On 07/21/14 10:25, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > > skrll@ wrote: > > > >> On 07/21/14 06:49, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > >>> matt@ wrote: > >>> > >>>>> For the next release, core/releng should decide per current > >>>>> implementation: > >>>>> - how the default userland MACHINE_ARCH should be deteremined > >>>> What do you mean by default? > >>> "What (and how) MACHINE_ARCH should releng (binary builders) specify > >>> for each arm port on NetBSD 7.0 release?" > >> Personally, I hope we'll see builds for most (probably no need for v[67] > >> sf) MACHINE_ARCH values. As matt said the RPI needs all the help it can > >> get :) > > releng already says we don't have enough resources. > > Really? Where did releng say that?
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2014/07/21/msg025327.html >> We probably don't have the ressources for providing binaries >> for each {,e}arm{,hf} variants. > IMO, non-earm ABI builds should be dropped in favour of earm and a > subset of evbarm earm variants should be made available. > > Something (build.sh/wiki/both) can document each evbarm board to the > correct MACHINE_ARCH variant based could then be provided. > > build.sh already contains useful information here > > zoom$ grep earm /usr/src/build.sh > MACHINE=cats MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4 ALIAS=ecats > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earm ALIAS=evbearm-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmeb ALIAS=evbearm-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmhf ALIAS=evbearmhf-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmhfeb ALIAS=evbearmhf-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4 ALIAS=evbearmv4-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4eb ALIAS=evbearmv4-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv5 ALIAS=evbearmv5-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv5eb ALIAS=evbearmv5-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv6 ALIAS=evbearmv6-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv6hf ALIAS=evbearmv6hf-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv6eb ALIAS=evbearmv6-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv6hfeb ALIAS=evbearmv6hf-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv7 ALIAS=evbearmv7-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv7eb ALIAS=evbearmv7-eb > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv7hf ALIAS=evbearmv7hf-el > MACHINE=evbarm MACHINE_ARCH=earmv7hfeb ALIAS=evbearmv7hf-eb > MACHINE=hpcarm MACHINE_ARCH=earm ALIAS=hpcearm > MACHINE=iyonix MACHINE_ARCH=earm ALIAS=eiyonix > MACHINE=netwinder MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4 ALIAS=enetwinder > MACHINE=shark MACHINE_ARCH=earmv4 ALIAS=eshark > MACHINE=zaurus MACHINE_ARCH=earm ALIAS=ezaurus > zoom$ > > > The evbarm board information can be derived from > > http://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src/etc/etc.evbarm/Makefile.inc > > Building all arm ports for acorn32 compatibility is madness. I know it has possible combinations. My first question is "Which MACHINE_ARCH should be used for each arm port on the next release" It's non-technical, but probably determined by marketing and resources. Ramdom comments won't help to get a proper conclusion, I'm afraid. > >>>>> - how to handle migration from old ABI to new one on sysinst > >>>> In essence, this is no different from upgrading an i386 userland to an > >>>> amd64 userland. > >>> So, your answer is > >>> "We will never prepare such upgrade path" > >>> right? > >> I don't know how you got from Matt's statement to your question. I think > >> there are solutions here. > > Where? > > > > There is no upgrade path from i386 to amd64 in sysinst. > > (we only had a.out to ELF) > > Someone(tm) needs to add it. SMOP, right? Yes. It isn't a technical issue either. My question to releng/core is "What should be done for the NetBSD 7.0 release?" I'm afraid we can't solve the issue until the target branch (or even release) date without proper plan. --- Izumi Tsutsui
