Hi, > I'd be IMO fine if we drop armel, armhf and mipsel, for the server side > of things. I don't see how one could reliable setup a cluster with this > type of CPUs in production anyway.
ack. > But IMO, it'd be nice if we could at least keep the client side working. > I'm not sure how to achieve this though, probably this will make the > build a lot more complicated. If you are keen on trying this, go on. I don't have enough spare time to care of it. Might make sense to open an upstream bug report about it, though. Supporting a client-only build should come from them imho, you never know how the build system will change and if it is possible to keep up support for it. Which parts of the client side are you interested in? I could imagine that building cephfs alone is possible. > BTW, any idea what dependency is missing in mips64el? https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ceph Dependency installability problem for ceph on mips64el: ceph build-depends on missing: - libboost-context-dev:mips64el (>= 1.67.0) (like on various other architectures) Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
