Building armhf/armel in same machines (was Re: Dropping support for the smallest armel machines)
Hello,
2013/7/5 Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>:
> [ Please CC me in replies. I'm not subscribed to the list. ]
> On 06/27/2013 19:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> Bet they're slower than QEMU versatile emulation on an x86. And DSA
>>> loves virtual machines. :-)
>> This speed comparison might not be true, and I know people worry about
>> accuracy of emulation and being able to reproduce architecture-
>> specific bugs.
>>
>> The other option that has been suggested repeatedly is to put armel
>> chroots on ARMv7 hardware. Unaligned accesses behave differently on
>> v7, but they weren't consistent between different v5 implementations
>> (http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/Unaligned_data_access) so I don't
>> think this is critical.
Starting to build armel and armhf together would be a step forward, as
we can lower the machine maintenance burden. Also, I'd like to see
this happen when we get reliable build nodes with enough available
RAM, as the Calxeda machines.
> We could try setting up armel chroots on ARMv7 hardware (the armhf
> buildds) for experimental and maybe wheezy-backports as well.
I'd be happy to set that up if none has an issue with it.
> This way packages entering the next release would still be built on
> ARMv5 hardware, but we could see how well it works in experimental.
>
> For -backports the packages should already have been built in unstable,
> though there's still a small risk of bugs if built on ARMv7 hardware
> instead of v5. However there's currently no buildds for
> wheezy-backports/armel at all (as far as I know)...
There is one, alain, but armel is quite busy architecture as it takes
its time to build stuff. I look forward to add more support for
-backports.
Also, N2100 based armel buildds which have not been building during
past release are planned for decommision. For current jessie release,
we are using mv78x00 machines for building armel (one more machine has
been added, arne) and mx53 for building armhf.
What do other porters think about starting to build armel and armhf
together, i.e. for -backports and experimental suites, on current
infrastructure?
Regards,
--
Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Reply to: