Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Niels Thykier:

> armel/armhf:
> ------------
>
>  * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020.  armhf VM
>    support uncertain. (DSA)
>    - Source: [DSA Sprint report]

Fedora is facing an issue running armhf under virtualization on arm64:

  <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572916>
  <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-06/msg00036.html>

Unless the discussion has moved somewhere where I can't follow it, no
one seems to have solid idea what is going on.  It's also not clear
that this configuration has substantial vendor or community support.
This makes me concerned that virtualization is a viable path forward
here.

(The discussion on the GCC list started off with a misdirection, sorry
about that.  The brief assumption that this was a hardware quirk is
likely quite wrong.)

>  * Concern for mips, mips64el, mipsel and ppc64el: no upstream support
>    in GCC
>    (Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch)

I'm surprised to read this.  ppc64el features prominently in the
toolchain work I do (though I personally do not work on the GCC side).
>From my point of view, it's absolutely not in the same category as the
MIPS-based architectures.