Hi On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote: > 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? I found this mail from Niels from the buster release cycle [2]. Going through it, it looks like it could be reused nearly completely. > 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. The 32 bit issue was discussed for buster quite extensively. > Paul > > [1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/arch_qualify.html Paul [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2018/06/msg00644.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature