Dear all, I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the architectures that will be part of bullseye. In the before last IRC meeting I promised I would send this mail, so here we go. Let's see what items we consider a must. Anybody else that wants to step in, feel free to take any action. 1) I haven't heard of new architectures that want to be on board for bullseye. 2) I think we have to ask several parties if they are OK with supporting the existing architectures: porters, DSA and security. I recall [1] DSA had issues with armel, but I believe that has been resolved by building on some other arm boxes, right? Do we already know of other issues? 3) In the current state, I think it boils down to the question if armel and mipsel should be dropped for bullseye or not. What do we think ourselves? Myself, I've been regularly cursing mipsel for it being so much slower to build packages than most architectures, but I don't think that's enough ;). Also, the limited address space of 32 bit architectures is lowest on mipsel and it is starting to count. I've seen several issues due to it (e.g. rustc), meaning that maintainers of some large packages need to spend serious effort to build their package on mipsel. I feel that several maintainers seriously doubt that effort is well spent. Paul [1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/arch_qualify.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature