Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to
>>> build armel and armhf packages aren't up to our standards, and we
>>> really, really want them to go away when stretch goes EOL (expected in
>>> 2020). We urge arm porters to find a way to build armhf packages in
>>> VMs or chroots on server-class arm64 hardware.
> from what i gather the rule is that the packages have to be built
> native. is that a correct understanding or has the policy changed?
Native in the sense that the CPU itself is not emulated which is the case
when building arm32 packages on arm64. We're also building i386 packages
on amd64 and we used to build powerpc packages on ppc64 (and we will continue
to do that once the move of powerpc to ports has been completed).
I think that building on arm64 after fixing the bug in question is the
way to move forward. I'm surprised the bug itself hasn't been fixed yet,
doesn't speak for ARM.
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - email@example.com
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - firstname.lastname@example.org
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913