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

Bug#1111010: marked as done (release.debian.org: phase out armel for forky)

Your message dated Sun, 30 Nov 2025 22:47:50 +0100
with message-id <aSy7hioznqF998gW@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1111010: release.debian.org: phase out armel for forky
has caused the Debian Bug report #1111010,
regarding release.debian.org: phase out armel for forky
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1111010: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1111010
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
User: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
Usertags: armel

The release notes for trixie announced that it would be the last release 
for armel.

Now that forky is open, would it be possible to start removing armel 
from the lists of architectures that "matter"? For example, this could 
allow packages whose buildability regresses on armel (usually due to 
lack of atomic ops) to migrate to testing, without needing ftp team 
intervention to clean up their old binaries.

In my case this request was prompted by looking at src:dxvk, which was 
buildable on armel in trixie but has regressed in experimental 
("undefined reference to `__atomic_fetch_sub_8'"), and at this stage of 
armel's life cycle it doesn't seem useful to spend time on fixing that.

Thanks,
    smcv

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2025-09-01 07:49:29 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: clone -1 -2 -3
> Control: reassign -2 ftp.debian.org
> Control: retitle -2 ftp.debian.org: remove armel from forky and unstable
> Control: reassign -3 buildd.debian.org
> Control: retitle -3 buildd.debian.org: stop building armel on forky and unstable
> 
> On 2025-08-22 13:25:33 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On 2025-08-13 17:40:26 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 13-08-2025 16:28, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > > Now that forky is open, would it be possible to start removing armel
> > > > from the lists of architectures that "matter"?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > We're intending to remove armel from testing soon. I seem to recall there
> > > was a reason why we might want to keep it longer during the cycle, but I
> > > can't recollect the reason and I can't seem to find it in my inbox (might
> > > have been on IRC or IRL. If nobody can reproduce the reason, we'll probably
> > > act within a couple of days/weeks. It already came up on IRC this week.
> > 
> > I intend to merge
> > https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/britney2/-/tree/armel-removal by
> > the end of August and will then ask FTP to remove armel from forky.
> 
> This is now done. Cloning and reassigning to also remove armel from
> forky and stop building packages for it. Unless there are any plans by
> the armel porters to move armel to ports, please do the same for
> unstable.

armel is now gone from testing/forky.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: