Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-09-03 01:14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > * there are enough crazy people with too much time like Adrian, >Roger and me who are willing to fix stuff This reminds me of something: Thanks to all of you! > So, currently all is good with armel and we can go back to > discussing

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 09/02/2017 11:44 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Right, most RPi users run Raspbian, but there are also people > - like me :~) - who prefer to run "pure" Debian, even at the > cost of a performance penalty (in case of RPi 1 or Zero). > I imagine, you know (and share) reasons to prefer Debian.

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-08-28 11:19, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march > set to ARMv6? Right, most RPi users run Raspbian, but there are also people - like me :~) - who prefer to run "pure" Debian, even at the cost of a performance penalty

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 19:27 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > [...] > > What matters for buster is gcc 8, and there is no current deprecation > in gcc that would affect the armel port. Thanks for all the info! > armel is a port on borrowed time since it supports old hardware > no longer supported

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:57:40PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:53:54AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >... > OTOH the > only relevant hardware for armel these days seems to be RPi, so why > not make armel into armhfv6 instead? Incompatible ABI, your suggestion to move Raspbian as armhfv6 into Debian would therefore have to be a new port.

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Monday, 28 August 2017 16:23:24 BST W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : > > On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > >> As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM > >> (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 10:11 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > This depends on the build process: In my case we build in a > clean environment with all build dependencies pre-installed. > Remember, this is not a generic Debian build process, but a > specialised one for certain packages. I'm pretty sure the

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-08-28 19:16, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 08/28/2017 06:30 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > But my experience is quiet good with this: > > > > ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/arm-linux-gnueabi- dpkg-buildpackage > > -rfakeroot -aarmel ... > > > > I don't remember what the ARCH

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 07:57 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due >> to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping >> CPU >> requirements is a good idea in general. If there are actual benefits >> to v5 as the default then

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 06:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due > to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 06:30 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > AFAIK, there is no policy requiring that packages can be cross-build. We are working on something like that, but it's a larger goal. Basically, we're planning to have cross-buildds which will additionally test packages for cross-buidability. One

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : We've done so for Jessie, but it is a rather tedious manual process and one which starts eroding the benefit of project soak on a supported installation footprint. A relief I didn't call out previously is these figures are physical sizes. We can

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 10:23 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : >> On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: >>> As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM >>> (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on such hardware >>>

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM (at least 64 MiB, better 128 MiB), Debian runs fine on such hardware in my experience. It depends on your applications, of course.

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 08:46 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Quoting uhmgawa : >> We probably should be leveraging a cross built embedded class distro which >> would place us in that mainstream and solve many of our logistical problems. > > As long as you have enough flash memory

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Quoting uhmgawa : We probably should be leveraging a cross built embedded class distro which would place us in that mainstream and solve many of our logistical problems. As long as you have enough flash memory (some hundreds of MiB) and RAM (at least 64 MiB, better 128

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/27/2017 07:36 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2017-08-28 06:53, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: >> >>> However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. >> As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due >> to the CPU

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 28/08/17 09:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 08/28/2017 12:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote: OTOH the only relevant hardware for armel these days seems to be RPi, so why not make armel into armhfv6 instead? Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march set to ARMv6?

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/28/2017 12:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > OTOH the only relevant hardware for armel these days seems > to be RPi, so why not make armel into armhfv6 instead? Aren't most RPi users running Raspian anyway which is armhf with -march set to ARMv6? Bumping armel from soft-fp to ARMv6 hard-fp doesn't

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-08-28 06:53, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. > > As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due > to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping CPU >

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > However, I think armel is time to transit to v5. As someone who can no longer run Debian stable on his MIPS device due to the CPU requirements bump in stretch, I'm not sure that bumping CPU requirements is a good idea in general. If there

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:22 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 08/17/2017 08:49 PM, Philippe Clérié wrote: >> If none of the curent armel porters want to continue working on armel >> for buster that is OK, but dropping armel from testing now would result >>

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

Hi, On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > With plenty of v6 Raspberry Pi Zero still being sold today there's > plenty of new v6 hardware available, and Debian should continue to > offer an own root filesystem for such hardware. +1 > Regarding the point that v4 is no

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 08/17/2017 08:49 PM, Philippe Clérié wrote: > If none of the curent armel porters want to continue working on armel > for buster that is OK, but dropping armel from testing now would result > in additional work later for re-adding it. Roger Shimizu and me are interested in keeping this port as

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

GOn 08/11/2017 08:04 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, since I am not in Montréal, I am sending my participation by email: Since Debian dropping popular ports is nothing I consider good for Debian, I hereby step up as armel porter for buster. If none

Re: ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

On 2017-08-11 15:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > If none of the curent armel porters want to continue working on armel > for buster that is OK, I still have v5 hardware running my house and thus am keen to see it maintained. And it's not simple to upgrade to a new box as it's got heating-control

ARM Ports BoF: armel in buster

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, since I am not in Montréal, I am sending my participation by email: Since Debian dropping popular ports is nothing I consider good for Debian, I hereby step up as armel porter for buster. If none of the curent armel porters want to continue