Le mer. 31 août 2022 à 03:55, Wookey <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On 2022-08-25 11:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > I don't have a good picture of where this puts us on a scale from "it's > > basically fine" to "armel users will report grave bugs in gjs-based > > packages whenever they try to run them, because they're hopelessly > > crashy". Does anyone have a better idea of whether these test failures > > are ignorable or RC? > > Not really. I don't know much about how mozjs, not exactly what the test > suite is testing. > > > I'm doing all this remotely on a porterbox, because my only armel > > machine was de-supported in Debian 11 due to kernel size issues and > > is headless anyway, > > I have some 32-bt armv7 hardware that can run a desktop so I'll fire > those up and test this on there to see if it's obviously broken or > not. > > I did try to get some feedback on whether armel should continue as a > release architecture at my debconf talk this year but no opinion was > expressed. I have no idea how many people would be affected but it's > certainly true that upstreams are not that bothered about continuing > to make things work on v5 so debian ends up noticing and fixing > things. We could certainly save ourselves some work by relegating it > to ports. We used isa-support's packages to get nodejs to run on a subset of armel, by depending on armv6-support and vfpv2-support. (actually nodejs needs armv6k, so armv6k-support is also on its way, available in isa-support 12). Maybe mozjs102 could try the same approach here ? Or maybe a better approach would be for "armel" architecture to upgrade to armv6k, if that makes sense. Jérémy
