Re: buster-ignore for armel/armhf alignment bugs?
Hey Andreas,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 02:06:44AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
>what is the SRM opinion on the armel/armhf alignment bugs that are
>exposed by building/running on 64-bit hardware that does not fix up
>misaligned accesses?
>
>https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=alignment;users=debian-arm@lists.debian.org
>
>The fixed bugs in this list are currently
>
>* fixed in buster (adios, mash, coturn)
>* fixed in sid (pywavelets, ndpi, nsis, ruby-ferret)
>* RMed from sid (pythonqt)
>
>Is it worth fixing them in buster point releases (i.e. are 32-bit arm
>buildds running on 64-bit hardware something that will be needed during
>the buster life cycle)? Or should we tag them 'buster-ignore'? (I think
>tagging them 'bullseye sid' would be wrong.)
/me recognises that list!
In terms of building updated packages for buster, I'd recommend
switching to either the existing 32-bit build machines or VMs running
32-bit kernels. I think we should have enough hardware coverage to be
able to do that.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Reply to: