On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote:
In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to
build armel and armhf packages aren't up to our standards, and we
really, really want them to go away when stretch goes EOL (expected in >>>> 2020). We urge arm porters to find a way to build armhf packages in
VMs or chroots on server-class arm64 hardware.
from what i gather the rule is that the packages have to be built
native. is that a correct understanding or has the policy changed?
Native in the sense that the CPU itself is not emulated which is the case when building arm32 packages on arm64.
I think that building on arm64 after fixing the bug in question is the
way to move forward. I'm surprised the bug itself hasn't been fixed yet, doesn't speak for ARM.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 44:44:14 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Files: | 12,197 |
Messages: | 5,329,716 |