On Wednesday 09 July 2014 03:48:40 Matthew Thode wrote: > arm has a historical problem with stabilization, while keywording > doesn't require access to all arm sub-arches the problem with the > stabilization slowness causes running a full ~arm to become hard. By > that I mean that if someone keywords something for arm because it works > on armv7 and I run ~arm because stabilization takes forever then my > system may break because of both non-stabilized packages and because I > could be running armv6.
So how common is it for a package to work correctly on armv7 but break on armv6? As far as I can see, splitting the keywords is a good idea if and only if this is common. > In any case I propose splitting out arm into armv4, armv5, armv6 and > armv7. armv8 seems to be here already as arm64. Do you foresee ~armv4 and ~armv5 keywords actually showing up in practice? > I think this would be beneficial because of not all developers that want > to help with arm have or what all the sub-arches necessary. It also > allows us to move faster on stabilization because most of us have access > to armv7 a bit easier. This would take some pressure off of the people > doing stabilization for older sub-arches, but not much. > > > Some issues that need solving are as follows. > > [hard|soft]float differences. what stabilization means would need to be > clarified a bit here. The same issue as above applies. Do packages commonly break or unbreak depending on hardfloat versus softfloat? -- Ruud
