On 07/31/2018 12:06 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:18:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, this machine does have neon so it's not even armhf baseline. And so
>>> many packages compile but don't
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:18:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >
> > Also, this machine does have neon so it's not even armhf baseline. And so
> > many packages compile but don't test. Thus, regressions from building on
> >
> On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:42 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> Also, this machine does have neon so it's not even armhf baseline. And so
> many packages compile but don't test. Thus, regressions from building on
> arm64 need not just hardware but also manpowers to detect.
But why should
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 08:43:02PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> If this is a concern, how to solve it? Have some native non-DSA
> armel/armhf boxes where volunteers rebuild the archive and hope test
> suites will catch such issues?
The problem is not doing the rebuilds, it's tuits to actually
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 08:43:02PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote...
>
> > I'd like to get a clear picture regarding the situation of building
> > armel for buster on arm64, ideally moving it to arm64 hardwre soon.
>
> JFTR, I'd appreciate if armel/armhf could continue to be
On 07/24/2018 08:43 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Perhaps just babble and FUD: There was (and probably still is) an issue
> in powerpc: In a certain package, upstream's compile options for ppc had
> higher CPU requirements than what Debian uses for that architecture. As
> a result, the buildd (some
On Tuesday 24 July 2018 14:43:02 Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote...
>
> > I'd like to get a clear picture regarding the situation of building
> > armel for buster on arm64, ideally moving it to arm64 hardwre soon.
>
> JFTR, I'd appreciate if armel/armhf could continue to be part of a
>
Adrian Bunk wrote...
> I'd like to get a clear picture regarding the situation of building
> armel for buster on arm64, ideally moving it to arm64 hardwre soon.
JFTR, I'd appreciate if armel/armhf could continue to be part of a
release.
> 1. What issues are considered possible problems for
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:22:36AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:27:15AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>...
>> The next big problem I can see is in our haskell packages for
>> armhf. From my build log for haskell-zxcvbn-c_1.0.1-4.log (as an
>> example):
>>
>> ...
>>
te) is low enough that several
>of the issues with running armhf code on arm64 are not present
>when running armel code on arm64.
>
>If anyone sees potential blockers for building armel on arm64,
>especially ones that are not present for building armhf on arm64,
>please speak up now.
I wa
d in the next version of their
architecture.
The armel baseline (currently armv5te) is low enough that several
of the issues with running armhf code on arm64 are not present
when running armel code on arm64.
If anyone sees potential blockers for building armel on arm64,
especially ones that are not
11 matches
Mail list logo
