Le mer. 31 août 2022 à 03:55, Wookey <
wookey@wookware.org> a écrit :
On 2022-08-25 11:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
I don't have a good picture of where this puts us on a scale from "it's basically fine" to "armel users will report grave bugs in gjs-based packages whenever they try to run them, because they're hopelessly
crashy". Does anyone have a better idea of whether these test failures
are ignorable or RC?
Not really. I don't know much about how mozjs, not exactly what the test suite is testing.
I'm doing all this remotely on a porterbox, because my only armel
machine was de-supported in Debian 11 due to kernel size issues and
is headless anyway,
I have some 32-bt armv7 hardware that can run a desktop so I'll fire
those up and test this on there to see if it's obviously broken or
not.
I did try to get some feedback on whether armel should continue as a
release architecture at my debconf talk this year but no opinion was expressed. I have no idea how many people would be affected but it's certainly true that upstreams are not that bothered about continuing
to make things work on v5 so debian ends up noticing and fixing
things. We could certainly save ourselves some work by relegating it
to ports.
We used isa-support's packages to get nodejs to run on a subset of armel,
by depending on armv6-support and vfpv2-support.
(actually nodejs needs armv6k, so armv6k-support is also on its way,
available in isa-support 12).
Maybe mozjs102 could try the same approach here ?
Or maybe a better approach would be for "armel" architecture to upgrade to armv6k,
if that makes sense.
Jérémy
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mer. 31 août 2022 à 03:55, Wookey <<a href="mailto:
wookey@wookware.org">
wookey@wookware.org</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="
gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 2022-08-25 11:34 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:<br>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 21:42:29 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I don't have a good picture of where this puts us on a scale from "it's<br>
> basically fine" to "armel users will report grave bugs in gjs-based<br>
> packages whenever they try to run them, because they're hopelessly<br> > crashy". Does anyone have a better idea of whether these test failures<br>
> are ignorable or RC?<br>
Not really. I don't know much about how mozjs, not exactly what the test suite is testing.<br>
> I'm doing all this remotely on a porterbox, because my only armel<br> > machine was de-supported in Debian 11 due to kernel size issues and<br> > is headless anyway,<br>
I have some 32-bt armv7 hardware that can run a desktop so I'll fire<br> those up and test this on there to see if it's obviously broken or<br> not.<br>
I did try to get some feedback on whether armel should continue as a<br> release architecture at my debconf talk this year but no opinion was<br> expressed. I have no idea how many people would be affected but it's<br> certainly true that upstreams are not that bothered about continuing<br>
to make things work on v5 so debian ends up noticing and fixing<br>
things. We could certainly save ourselves some work by relegating it<br>
to ports.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>We used isa-support's packages to get nodejs to run on a subset of armel,</div><div>by depending on armv6-support and vfpv2-support.</div><div>(actually nodejs needs armv6k, so armv6k-support is also on its
way, available in isa-support 12).</div><div><br></div><div>Maybe mozjs102 could try the same approach here ?</div><div>Or maybe a better approach would be for "armel" architecture to upgrade to armv6k,</div><div>if that makes sense.</div><div><
</div><div>Jérémy</div><div><br></div></div></div>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)