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

Re: Haskell on armel

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:31:28 +0100
Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> we need a decision about what to do with Haskell on armel.

Is there a use case for haskell on armel that anyone knows / cares
about? That would determine whether haskell could be removed without
worries about it being a one-way change.

Are there particular haskell packages which could be relevant to a
NAS-type installation or other minimal installation-size server setup?
Typical armel devices don't have endless Gb of storage for the rootfs.

> Recall that the Haskell compiler GHC has recently improved its support
> for (recent forms of) ARM, and a new release (7.10.3) with that is
> expected real soon. This has been sitting in experimental for far too
> long, and as soon as 7.10.3 is out proper, I’d really like to upload
> this to unstable and have a quick (i.e. as quick as mips can build)
> migration to testing.
> But in 7.10.3, upstream has (inadvertently) broken support for ARMv4,
> i.e. armel. See https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/11058 for
> details. It does not look as if we can rely on this getting fixed
> until the release.
> So it seems that the only way forward would be to drop Haskell on
> armel completely from unstable, as anything else will prevent its
> migration to testing. (It is not sufficient to drop it in testing, as
> still all packages would be considered as out-of-date by britney.)
> But this is particularly annoying as bootstrapping Haskell (should
> support come back eventually) is a slightly annoying and manual task.
> We do not want to revert the breaking change in Debian, as it fixes
> other relevant problems with Haskell on arm (well, armhf and arm64
> only).
> Are there any other approaches worth considering?

For the benefit of the haskell list, note that the ARM BoF at DebConf
considered wider issues relating to armel:

> Should we keep it for Stretch? Maybe with subarchitecture support,
> when available. We still have some users, but not *many*. tbm would
> miss it and is still supporting quite a lot of users. Could we get the
> people who care about armel to do a minimally-supported LTS for
> Jessie/Stretch? Typical users are now on NAS boxes or some
> Freedomboxes, just using server software - no X, no graphics etc.
> Should be possible?



Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpa8Dgojzk32.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: