[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#933101: buster: baseline for armel raised to ARMv5T



Package: release-notes
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-arm@lists.debian.org

Full quote for context.

On Vi, 26 iul 19, 19:29:26, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Dick!
> 
> On 7/26/19 7:13 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> > The website says that you are supporting 4T in the ARMEL repo:
> > 
> > See the first sentence of this page:
> > 
> > 
> > 	https://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort
> 
> It is a wiki page, not the official Debian documentation. Unfortunately, this
> page hasn't been updated yet.

Could you please point to where this is documented in order to link to 
it from the Release Notes?

> > On that basis I invested a lot of time getting a kernel ready and scripts and C/C++
> > development system ready, then I got body slammed after all that time when I learned that
> > the minimum arm machine required for ARMEL BUSTER is 5T, not 4T.  At least this was the
> > case for busybox-static and also systemd.  I could not boot into userspace.
> 
> That's unfortunate, indeed.
> 
> > $ readelf -a busybox | grep Tag_CPU
> > 
> > 
> > This shows that this particular binary is not 4T compatible.  And I must say, this is a
> > huge disappointment for me, given the time I have spent on it.  Because I am supporting
> > multiple machines, 5 debian architectures in total, each with rootfs, custom kernels, and
> > customer C/C++ toolkits, this was all hoping to come together on a common Debian version
> > named buster.
> > 
> > It seems that the last support of 4T for ARMEL was Stretch.  But I cannot dovetail all
> > these C/C++ toolkits using different versions of the tools.  I did this using multi-arch
> > in a Docker container based on buster for all archs.
> > 
> > If this was an oversight, please consider rebuilding these packages using the corrected
> > compiler options.  Or at least fix the website so somebody else does not lose so much time.
> 
> It was not an oversight. The bump happened because various other upstream projects
> announced they would raise their minimum baselines to ARMv5T such as OpenJDK.
> 
> > In either case a policy statement seems to be needed.  Was this an oops or was it
> > deliberate?  (Why deliberately make an architecture which is attempting to support old ARM
> > CPUs NOT support old ARM CPUs?)
> 
> The raise to ARMv5T was necessary to keep armel supported. It wouldn't have been
> possible to keep the port if had let it at ARMv4T.

Wikipedia only mentions ARMv5TE.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: