spoke again to TL and asked if pine64 would be willing to look at
sponsorship witn rockpro64 boards (the ones that take 4x PCIe): if
someone from debian were to contact him direct he would happily
consider it.
i then asked him if i could cc him into this discussion and he said he
was way *way* too
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>
>>> also worth noting, they're working on a 2U rackmount server which
>>> will have i think something insane like 48 Rock64Pro boards in one
>>> full-length case.
>
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>
>> that is not a surprise to hear: the massive thrashing caused by the
>> linker phase not being possible to be RAM-resident wil
* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
> that is not a surprise to hear: the massive thrashing caused by the
> linker phase not being possible to be RAM-resident will be absolutely
> hammering the drives beyond reasonable wear-and-tear limits. which is
> why i'm recommending people try "-Wl,--no-keep-m
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> also worth noting, they're working on a 2U rackmount server which
>> will have i think something insane like 48 Rock64Pro boards in one
>> full-length case.
> None of this addresses the basic DSA requirement of remote management.
> T
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:29:48PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Are you sure you're not interchanging A8 and A9, cfr. Linux kernel commit
> e388b80288aade31 ("ARM: spectre-v2: add Cortex A8 and A15 validation of the
> IBE bit")?
Yes. That is the main reason the A9 is faster than the A8 at t
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:05:55PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> apologies for repeating it again: this is why i'm recommending people
> try "-Wl,--no-keep-memory" on the linker phase as if it works as
> intended it will almost certainly drastically reduce memory usage to
> the poin
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>2G is also way too little memory these days for a new buildd.
>
> Nod - lots of packages are just too big for that now.
apologies for repeating it again: this is why i'm recommending people
try "-Wl,--no-keep-memory" on the linker phase a
Hi Lennart,
debian-ports -> debian-arm
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:00 PM Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > in addition, arm64 is usually speculative OoO (Cavium ThunderX V1
> > being a notable exception) which means it's vu
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:23:25AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>On 06/29/2018 09:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>
>>> [DSA Sprint report]:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/02/msg4.html
>>
>> In this report Julien Cristau wrote:
>>
>>> In short, the hardware (development boa
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:26PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
>> I see armel is already not a candidate for buster [0].
>> So it seems we can discuss armhf, but no armel at all.
>> I don't agree with this idea.
>> And I think we sh
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:04:26PM +0900, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> I see armel is already not a candidate for buster [0].
> So it seems we can discuss armhf, but no armel at all.
> I don't agree with this idea.
> And I think we should treat armel and armhf equally.
Please review the mail which origi
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:20:50AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> in addition, arm64 is usually speculative OoO (Cavium ThunderX V1
> being a notable exception) which means it's vulnerable to spectre and
> meltdown attacks, whereas 32-bit ARM is exclusively in-order. if you
> want t
Open Network Linux developed for the Open Compute Project has a vested
interest in maintaining support for armel at least. I would be interested
in sponsoring or donating rack mountable switches using armel processors.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:04 AM, W. Martin Borgert
wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Klein
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
> Hello Julien,
>
> On 06/29/2018 11:23 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> If the concerns are mostly about the hardware not being rackable, there
>>> is a rackable NAS by Netgear:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.netgear.com/business/products/stor
Hello Julien,
On 06/29/2018 11:23 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> If the concerns are mostly about the hardware not being rackable, there
>> is a rackable NAS by Netgear:
>>
>>
>> https://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN2120.aspx#tab-techspecs
>>
>> with an armhf cpu. Not s
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Everyone, please avoid followups to debian-po...@lists.debian.org.
> Unless something is relevant to *all* architectures (hint: discussion of
> riscv or arm issues don't qualify), keep replies to the appropriate
> port-specific mailing lis
On 06/27/2018 10:03 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> As part of the interim architecture qualification for buster, we request
> that DSA, the security team and the toolchain maintainers review and
> update their list of known concerns for buster release architectures.
>
Everyone, please avoi
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:06 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
>> wrote:
>>
In short, the hardware (development boards) we're currently using to
build armel and armhf
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
>> i don't know: i'm an outsider who doesn't have the information in
>> short-term memory, which is why i cc'd the debian-riscv team as they
>> have current facts and knowledge foremost in their minds. which is
>> why i included them.
>
>
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-
> > updates
> > w
On 06/29/2018 10:41 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
> 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 t
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
>> what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
>
> I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload that's in proposed-updates
> waiting for the point
Quoting Uwe Kleine-König :
If the concerns are mostly about the hardware not being rackable, there
is a rackable NAS by Netgear:
https://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN2120.aspx#tab-techspecs
This seems to be out of stock and discontinued, unfortunately.
Anyway,
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
> debi
[s/debian-ports/debian-arm/]
On 06/29/2018 09:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> armel/armhf:
>>
>>
>> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>>support uncertain. (DSA)
>>-
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> armel/armhf:
>
>
> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>support uncertain. (DSA)
>- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
[other affected 32-bit architectures removed but still relevant]
... i'm
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> armel/armhf:
>>
>>
>> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>>support uncertain. (DSA)
>>- Source: [DSA Sprint
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:03:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> armel/armhf:
>
>
> * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM
>support uncertain. (DSA)
>- Source: [DSA Sprint report]
>
> [DSA Sprint report]:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-p
29 matches
Mail list logo
