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

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>]

> On Jun 29, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:26PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>> I see armel is already not a candidate for buster [0].
>> So it seems we can discuss armhf, but no armel at all.
>> I don't agree with this idea.
>> And I think we should treat armel and armhf equally.
> 
> Please review the mail which originated this thread [1] where you will see
> that both armel and armhf are affected by DSA's concern. If I understand
> correctly, virtualisation of architectures in general is a possible
> solution but there are problems in the case of these two.

I have just talked to a colleague at SUSE about this and apparently Alex Graf from SUSE’s QEMU/KVM team has fixed many bugs regarding ARM32 on ARM64 virtualization. If I understand correctly, SUSE builds ARMv7 on ARM64 without problems.

I have reached out to Alex Graf and asked him for clarification on what possibilities we currently have.

Adrian