Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:27:09AM +0000, Riku Voipio wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * 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>
>
>I think you mean:
>
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576593
Yeah, that looks more likely. I can see that Ard is already trying to
help debug it. But things have gone quiet for a couple of weeks, at
least in the public discussion.
...
>> 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.
>
>I understand your concern. It would be surprising if this specific bug doesn't
>get found and fixed. It's probably stuck because everyone thinks it's
>probably someone elses bug ;)
Yeah, that's my thought too. :-)
>I still think the armhf vm on arm64 is the only reasonable path forward medium
>term. The existing arm64 hw that suport arm32 vm's is still around and
>infinitely better than native aarch32 builder hw, and should still be viable
>for some time.
Nod. The "fun" thing we see is that quite a few of the biggest AArch64
CPUs are A64-only, but there's still a selection of things available
that I think look OK. I'll post separately in a moment about that...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Is there anybody out there?
Reply to: