Re: Porter roll call for Debian Bullseye
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:40 PM peter green <plugwash@p10link.net> wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 16:40, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:21:42AM +0100, basti wrote:
> >> Hello Adrian,
> >>
> >> How can I help to get bullseye on armel?
> >
> > My impression was that the biggest problem for armel and armhf is the
> > lack of reliable build machines. Not sure if any of the 64 bit arm
> > servers are suitable for building armel or armhf or if they lack certain
> > required instructions.
> >
> Debian has been building armel and armhf on arm64 "server" hardware for
> some time. There have been some issues relating to building on 64-bit
> kernels (mostly that the 64-bit kernels default to trapping alignment
> errors rather than fixing them up), but nothing earth-shatteringly bad.
I wonder if this is something we should address in the kernel, and make
the behavior in compat mode resemble native 32-bit kernels more closely.
I think in general we should give as much incentive as possible for
using 64-bit kernels even when running legacy user space, in
particular as the 32-bit kernel is also missing some pieces for
running 32-bit user space on 64-bit hardware.
> You do of course have to make sure you get a machine that actually has
> 32-bit support, some of the arm server hardware doesn't.
Right, most importantly, the ones that do not work include
- ThunderX
- ThunderX2
- Apple M1
while the ones that do have aarch32 mode include
- All Ampere servers
- Amazon EC2
- NXP LX2160, as used in Solidrun LX2K machines
- All other Cortex-A72 and A76 based servers
Arnd
Reply to: