Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Christoph Biedl writes ("Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)"): > Doing this by hand is of course neither fast nor simple. The migration > script you requested could change that, however it's a delicate job, > full of pitfalls, desaster if anything goes wrong, so

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

[ limiting to devel- ] Wouter Verhelst wrote... > I think a proper procedure should involve a script that: [ sane criteria ] > We currently don't have anything remotely like the above, and I think we > should. Yes, but I doubt it would be used a lot. There's a wide-spread culture of

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Lennart Sorensen wrote... > I actually highly doubt there are that many armv7 boxes running armel. > armhf was a nice performance improvement and worth the hassle to reinstall > if you had such a box in the first place. I think most armel systems > are probably armv5, often the marvell chips.

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 08:15:15PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 09:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, but that still says: > > Ack. > > > I think a proper procedure should involve a script that: > > > > - is packaged in Debian; > > Ack. > > > - checks whether the

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Roger Shimizu wrote: > Is there any way to simplify? Remove the obsolete armel binaries where they occur and then mark the packages as NFU on armel: https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals https://wiki.debian.org/PackagesArchSpecific -- bye, pabs

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Wookey wrote: > > We can do poor-mans partial arch by just being fairly agressive about > disabling armel for packages that are broken or not suitable. Not very > clever or efficient, but it is easy to do and requires no infra or > tooling

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 09:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Yes, but that still says: Ack. > I think a proper procedure should involve a script that: > > - is packaged in Debian; Ack. > - checks whether the hardware it's running on has all the hardware >   requirements for the new

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 09:45:01AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:19:34AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > > One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we > > > could somehow upgrade

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:19:34AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we > > could somehow upgrade from armel machines to armhf ones, without > > requiring a reinstall. > >

Re: Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Hello. recent u-boot for kirkwood armel devices: http://forum.doozan.com/read.php?3,12381 Regards -- Nos vemos en los bares. J. Carlos

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On 2016-12-16, Roger Shimizu wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Christoph Biedl > wrote: >>> Is it possible to put a bootloader like u-boot in the flash partitions >>> and have it load the Linux kernel and initrd from elsewhere?

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

[CC Vagrant, u-boot pkg maintainer] On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Paul Wise wrote... >> >> Is it possible to put a bootloader like u-boot in the flash partitions >> and have it load the Linux kernel and initrd from elsewhere? > > That

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we > could somehow upgrade from armel machines to armhf ones, without > requiring a reinstall. There is a script for that here: https://wiki.debian.org/CrossGrading

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 06:40:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: > [...asking for armel to be retained...] > > One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we > could somehow upgrade from armel machines to

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: [...asking for armel to be retained...] One way in which the need to keep armel around would be reduced is if we could somehow upgrade from armel machines to armhf ones, without requiring a reinstall. After all, armel has been around

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On 2016-12-13 23:42 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:21:48PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > W. Martin Borgert wrote... > > > The forementioned hardware needs < 0.5 W, the manufacturer even > > > claims 0.18 W. AFAIK, most newer ARM boards that are capable to > > > run

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 03:53:31PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > AFAIK there are potentially still similar problems with ARMv5 - lack > of architcture-defined barrier primitives for C++11 atomics to > work. (I'd love to be corrected on this if people know better!) This > is one of the key points

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:21:48PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > W. Martin Borgert wrote... > > The forementioned hardware needs < 0.5 W, the manufacturer even > > claims 0.18 W. AFAIK, most newer ARM boards that are capable to > > run Debian need more energy or am I wrong? > > So let me play

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

W. Martin Borgert wrote... > The forementioned hardware needs < 0.5 W, the manufacturer even > claims 0.18 W. AFAIK, most newer ARM boards that are capable to > run Debian need more energy or am I wrong? So let me play the devil's advocate another time: My Dockstar runs 24/7 and allegedly

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

2016-12-09 0:12 GMT+02:00 Christoph Biedl : > Same here. My Dockstars (orion5x/kirkwood) still work like a charm and > it gives a bad feeling having to trash them some day just because > there's no support any more. > > On the other hand, they face another problem I

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 09:14:09 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > And, while we're at it, how is "locale" pronounced? I have a native > speaker in my filter bubble who claims that it's short for "local > environment" and therefore pronounced "local e", but that sounds wrong >

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:12:20 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: >Locale generation needs a lot of RAM. You can work around it by >installing locales-all which however takes long time to install on >slow flash drives. Or disable locales entirely. Err. Or build a

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On 2016-12-10 21:40, Adam Borowski wrote: > Once you go down from 3GB memory that P4 in my cellar has to 128MB your > armel box is limited to, the number of uses gets sharply limited. Even > simple "apt update" takes ages. The (multiple!) machines with 128 MB we run, have a dedicated repository

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 05:54:29PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Certainly, with some limits though. At some point new hardware is that > much more energy efficient the inital cost pays off over the intended > time of usage. Want my old P4 server? That P4 server can drive a bunch of disks and

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On 2016-12-10 17:54, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Maximum RAM is 128 Mbytes. Wouldn't buy this to run Debian on it. Depends on the use case. My employer is using it successfully since years. Of course: No X, no database, no big data, but some hungry Pythons and a web interface :~) > At some point

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

W. Martin Borgert wrote... > Quoting Ben Hutchings : > >Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I > >wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > >buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition >

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Paul Wise wrote... > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I > > wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > > buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Sat, 2016-12-10 at 09:54 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd.  I > > wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > > buster we can't build a useful kernel

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On 2016-12-07 15:53 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: > >I'm ARM porter on armel/marvell (orion5x/kirkwood). > >Stretch will be frozen and released soon, which makes me bit depressed, > >because it means armel will be dropped out of

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I > wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition > that most of these devices

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 22:14 +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: > On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:53:17 + > > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd.  I > > wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > >

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Quoting Ben Hutchings : Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition that most of these devices seem to have.

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 00:53:17 + Ben Hutchings wrote: > Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I > wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release > buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition >

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 23:12 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Roger Shimizu wrote... > > > I'm ARM porter on armel/marvell (orion5x/kirkwood). > > Stretch will be frozen and released soon, which makes me bit depressed,  > > because it means armel will be dropped out of unstable/testing as the  > >

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

Roger Shimizu wrote... > I'm ARM porter on armel/marvell (orion5x/kirkwood). > Stretch will be frozen and released soon, which makes me bit depressed, > because it means armel will be dropped out of unstable/testing as the > conclusion of Cape Town BoF. Same here. My Dockstars

Re: armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:50:40PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote: >[ intentionally keep d-d CCed ] > >On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:36:05 +0100 >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> [ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ] >> >> Hi folks, >> >> As promised, here's a quick summary of what was

armel after Stretch (was: Summary of the ARM ports BoF at DC16)

[ intentionally keep d-d CCed ] On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:36:05 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote: > [ Please note the cross-post and Reply-To ] > > Hi folks, > > As promised, here's a quick summary of what was discussed at the ARM > ports BoF session in Cape Town. Thanks for the