Re: Bug#886294: transition: nodejs

2018-01-30 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 29/01/18 20:15, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2018-01-25 11:36, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> Bumping the baseline to z196 looks like the easiest way and as you said, >> it would also fix go, rustc and maybe more software. However we discussed >> raising the ISA to z10 about one year and a half ago, and

Re: Bug#886294: transition: nodejs

2018-01-29 Thread Philipp Kern
On 2018-01-25 11:36, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Bumping the baseline to z196 looks like the easiest way and as you said, it would also fix go, rustc and maybe more software. However we discussed raising the ISA to z10 about one year and a half ago, and the conclusion was that we still have users

Re: Bug#886294: transition: nodejs

2018-01-25 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On 2018-01-24 13:24, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 23/01/18 19:21, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > cc-ing s390x team to ask (re)building nodejs-8.9.3~dfsg-11 on zemlinsky. > > > > but on s390x you're getting > > illegal instructions on zemlinsky, which is a Z10 mainframe. > >

Re: Bug#886294: transition: nodejs

2018-01-24 Thread Bastian Blank
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:24:06PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Our baseline is z10, and z196 is newer. So if upstream now requires z196, we > have three options: > > - Revert / fix that so upstream works with z10 again > - Remove nodejs from s390x > - Bump our baseline > > See go and

Re: Bug#886294: transition: nodejs

2018-01-24 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 23/01/18 19:21, Jérémy Lal wrote: > cc-ing s390x team to ask (re)building nodejs-8.9.3~dfsg-11 on zemlinsky. > > but on s390x you're getting > illegal instructions on zemlinsky, which is a Z10 mainframe. Looks > like newer > node possibly bumped