Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
> 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
Reply to:
- References:
- Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns
- From: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
- Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
- From: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>
- Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
- From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
- Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
- From: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org>
- Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
- From: Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com>
- Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concernsj
- From: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>