Re: Any chance to provide upstream access to armhf machine thats comparable to our autobuilder?
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> >> when discussing bug #800469 upstream thinks that armhf should work and
> >> the question came up whether there is some chance to access an armhf
> >> machine that is comparable to our autobuilders.
> >>
> >
> > The porterbox abel.debian.org runs the same hardware as the buildds and has
> > both armel and armhf chroots available.
> >
> > There is a procedure for guest accounts on porterboxes, though I haven't
> > used it myself so I don't know how well it works in practice.
>
> The process has simplified, and just visit: https://nm.debian.org/wizard/
> and click "Request guest account".
>
> Just curious that this issue cannot be reproduced by pbuilder or
> similar on self arm boxes?
In the discussion of the according pull request[1] that was suggested in
Debian bug #800469 quite at the end the following reason is given:
plugwash commented 2 hours ago
When it comes to alignment issues qemu favours performance over
correctness. So code with alignment issues that will fail on real
hardware will often work in qemu.
Upstream possibly has no access to an arm box and I'm personally lacking
the knowledge to track down the issue. If you want to fix #800469 -
that's perfectly welcome ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://github.com/samtools/htslib/pull/99
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: