~alpine/devel

7 5

[alpine-devel] Alpine and armv7

Oliver Smith
Details
Message ID
<144d0e30-3c17-66b9-b2b6-7671eb8b6f84@bitmessage.ch>
Sender timestamp
1537341960
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hello Alpine friends,


how about providing packages for the armv7 architecture in Alpine?

This has been discussed quite a few times in IRC and even proposed on
the ML in 2015 [1], but not really with a result. I've also talked to a
few Alpine developers independently about it, and each time the result
was basically, that they would want that.

Let me re-iterate the common talking points:

* What's the advantage?

Programs would be optimized for armv7 instead of armv6, thus giving them
a good speed improvement and smaller binaries due to thumb2.

A more specific use case would be QT's QML framework, which has a JIT
compiler for armv7 but not for armv6 [2].

* Which devices are armv6 anyway?

The most relevant ones would be the Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero. Other than
that, most arm devices are armv7 ones.

* Replace armv6 with armv7? Or provide it as additional architecture?

Initially I would have preferred to have armv7 as additional
architecture. But of course that means it needs twice the resources, and
getting that out of thin air doesn't seem to be realistic for Alpine. So
my opinion has shifted, I think replacing armv6 with armv7 would be nice
already.

Questions:
* is there anyone who insists on Alpine keeping armv6 support?
* what would be the steps required to get armv7 going with Alpine and
how can I help out?


Best regards,
Oliver

[1]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/5036.html
[2]: https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pmaports/issues/75



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Timo Teräs
Details
Message ID
<CABTJ_OdVBru74iPZ7At2vsguM3Xq+RxdXWtzG+aYQO_wZmN7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<144d0e30-3c17-66b9-b2b6-7671eb8b6f84@bitmessage.ch> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537357136
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

I think we have the triplet already in scripts and everywhere. It is just
matter of starting builders and making sure all builds. Maybe add arch=arm
that covers armhf and armv7.

I suppose the main reason for going with armv6 was rpi1 which was the only
rpi at the time.

We had also limited build power for arm, but the situation is much better
now with aarch64 builders that can do arm too.

I was just making chrome build on armhf, but seems very tricky to do armv6
build of it. I ended up shipping armv7 build in armhf for now. Seems many
care of armv7+ or armv4 only...

I would be in favor of starting armv7 builders now. And maybe drop armhf a
release cycle or two.

@ncopa What do you think?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 10.27 Oliver Smith, <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>
wrote:

> Hello Alpine friends,
>
>
> how about providing packages for the armv7 architecture in Alpine?
>
> This has been discussed quite a few times in IRC and even proposed on
> the ML in 2015 [1], but not really with a result. I've also talked to a
> few Alpine developers independently about it, and each time the result
> was basically, that they would want that.
>
> Let me re-iterate the common talking points:
>
> * What's the advantage?
>
> Programs would be optimized for armv7 instead of armv6, thus giving them
> a good speed improvement and smaller binaries due to thumb2.
>
> A more specific use case would be QT's QML framework, which has a JIT
> compiler for armv7 but not for armv6 [2].
>
> * Which devices are armv6 anyway?
>
> The most relevant ones would be the Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero. Other than
> that, most arm devices are armv7 ones.
>
> * Replace armv6 with armv7? Or provide it as additional architecture?
>
> Initially I would have preferred to have armv7 as additional
> architecture. But of course that means it needs twice the resources, and
> getting that out of thin air doesn't seem to be realistic for Alpine. So
> my opinion has shifted, I think replacing armv6 with armv7 would be nice
> already.
>
> Questions:
> * is there anyone who insists on Alpine keeping armv6 support?
> * what would be the steps required to get armv7 going with Alpine and
> how can I help out?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Oliver
>
> [1]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/5036.html
> [2]: https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pmaports/issues/75
>
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
>
>
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20180919154656.7c6dfb9b@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To
<CABTJ_OdVBru74iPZ7At2vsguM3Xq+RxdXWtzG+aYQO_wZmN7Fw@mail.gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537364816
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:38:56 +0300
Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think we have the triplet already in scripts and everywhere. It is just
> matter of starting builders and making sure all builds. Maybe add arch=arm
> that covers armhf and armv7.
> 
> I suppose the main reason for going with armv6 was rpi1 which was the only
> rpi at the time.
> 
> We had also limited build power for arm, but the situation is much better
> now with aarch64 builders that can do arm too.
> 
> I was just making chrome build on armhf, but seems very tricky to do armv6
> build of it. I ended up shipping armv7 build in armhf for now. Seems many
> care of armv7+ or armv4 only...
> 
> I would be in favor of starting armv7 builders now. And maybe drop armhf a
> release cycle or two.
> 
> @ncopa What do you think?

I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf as
armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with armv7?
Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i understand
things correctly.

-nc

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 10.27 Oliver Smith, <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Alpine friends,
> >
> >
> > how about providing packages for the armv7 architecture in Alpine?
> >
> > This has been discussed quite a few times in IRC and even proposed on
> > the ML in 2015 [1], but not really with a result. I've also talked to a
> > few Alpine developers independently about it, and each time the result
> > was basically, that they would want that.
> >
> > Let me re-iterate the common talking points:
> >
> > * What's the advantage?
> >
> > Programs would be optimized for armv7 instead of armv6, thus giving them
> > a good speed improvement and smaller binaries due to thumb2.
> >
> > A more specific use case would be QT's QML framework, which has a JIT
> > compiler for armv7 but not for armv6 [2].
> >
> > * Which devices are armv6 anyway?
> >
> > The most relevant ones would be the Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero. Other than
> > that, most arm devices are armv7 ones.
> >
> > * Replace armv6 with armv7? Or provide it as additional architecture?
> >
> > Initially I would have preferred to have armv7 as additional
> > architecture. But of course that means it needs twice the resources, and
> > getting that out of thin air doesn't seem to be realistic for Alpine. So
> > my opinion has shifted, I think replacing armv6 with armv7 would be nice
> > already.
> >
> > Questions:
> > * is there anyone who insists on Alpine keeping armv6 support?
> > * what would be the steps required to get armv7 going with Alpine and
> > how can I help out?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oliver
> >
> > [1]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/5036.html
> > [2]: https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pmaports/issues/75
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> > Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> > ---
> >
> >  



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Timo Teräs
Details
Message ID
<CABTJ_OcjR4Nu1NFqVXP6neL0iEF5Le=YVC4gjCVT92Woon+RBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20180919154656.7c6dfb9b@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537368182
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:38:56 +0300
> Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we have the triplet already in scripts and everywhere. It is just
> > matter of starting builders and making sure all builds. Maybe add
> arch=arm
> > that covers armhf and armv7.
> >
> > I suppose the main reason for going with armv6 was rpi1 which was the
> only
> > rpi at the time.
> >
> > We had also limited build power for arm, but the situation is much better
> > now with aarch64 builders that can do arm too.
> >
> > I was just making chrome build on armhf, but seems very tricky to do
> armv6
> > build of it. I ended up shipping armv7 build in armhf for now. Seems many
> > care of armv7+ or armv4 only...
> >
> > I would be in favor of starting armv7 builders now. And maybe drop armhf
> a
> > release cycle or two.
> >
> > @ncopa What do you think?
>
> I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf as
> armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with armv7?
> Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i understand
> things correctly.
>

Let's keep armhf still for a while. I suggest we bootstrap armv7 on x86-64
and start new builder edge/armv7. Once all builds, we can poll how many
still need armhf.

And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was armhf
equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter.

I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere.

Meanwhile, we probably want to patch aports to change all arch places from
armhf to armhf+armv7, or potentially add "arm" as umbrella for all the
32bit arm builds and change armhf to that. Maybe someone can do that while
I prepare the initial package set cross built.

Timo



>
>
> -nc
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 10.27 Oliver Smith, <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Alpine friends,
> > >
> > >
> > > how about providing packages for the armv7 architecture in Alpine?
> > >
> > > This has been discussed quite a few times in IRC and even proposed on
> > > the ML in 2015 [1], but not really with a result. I've also talked to a
> > > few Alpine developers independently about it, and each time the result
> > > was basically, that they would want that.
> > >
> > > Let me re-iterate the common talking points:
> > >
> > > * What's the advantage?
> > >
> > > Programs would be optimized for armv7 instead of armv6, thus giving
> them
> > > a good speed improvement and smaller binaries due to thumb2.
> > >
> > > A more specific use case would be QT's QML framework, which has a JIT
> > > compiler for armv7 but not for armv6 [2].
> > >
> > > * Which devices are armv6 anyway?
> > >
> > > The most relevant ones would be the Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero. Other than
> > > that, most arm devices are armv7 ones.
> > >
> > > * Replace armv6 with armv7? Or provide it as additional architecture?
> > >
> > > Initially I would have preferred to have armv7 as additional
> > > architecture. But of course that means it needs twice the resources,
> and
> > > getting that out of thin air doesn't seem to be realistic for Alpine.
> So
> > > my opinion has shifted, I think replacing armv6 with armv7 would be
> nice
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > > * is there anyone who insists on Alpine keeping armv6 support?
> > > * what would be the steps required to get armv7 going with Alpine and
> > > how can I help out?
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Oliver
> > >
> > > [1]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/5036.html
> > > [2]: https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pmaports/issues/75
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> > > Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
>
>
Timo Teras
Details
Message ID
<20180919185033.3a981b15@vostro>
In-Reply-To
<CABTJ_OcjR4Nu1NFqVXP6neL0iEF5Le=YVC4gjCVT92Woon+RBw@mail.gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537372233
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:43:02 +0300
Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > > @ncopa What do you think?  
> >
> > I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf
> > as armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with
> > armv7? Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i
> > understand things correctly.
> >  
> 
> Let's keep armhf still for a while. I suggest we bootstrap armv7 on
> x86-64 and start new builder edge/armv7. Once all builds, we can poll
> how many still need armhf.
> 
> And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was
> armhf equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter.
> 
> I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere.
> 
> Meanwhile, we probably want to patch aports to change all arch places
> from armhf to armhf+armv7, or potentially add "arm" as umbrella for
> all the 32bit arm builds and change armhf to that. Maybe someone can
> do that while I prepare the initial package set cross built.

Initial bootstrap build completed.

Packages are at:
http://dev.alpinelinux.org/~tteras/armv7/

Let's start a new edge builder using those.

Timo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20180919185315.42d150e0@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To
<20180919185033.3a981b15@vostro> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537375995
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:50:33 +0300
Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:43:02 +0300
> Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
> > wrote:
> >   
> > > > @ncopa What do you think?    
> > >
> > > I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf
> > > as armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with
> > > armv7? Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i
> > > understand things correctly.
> > >    
> > 
> > Let's keep armhf still for a while. I suggest we bootstrap armv7 on
> > x86-64 and start new builder edge/armv7. Once all builds, we can poll
> > how many still need armhf.
> > 
> > And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was
> > armhf equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter.
> > 
> > I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, we probably want to patch aports to change all arch places
> > from armhf to armhf+armv7, or potentially add "arm" as umbrella for
> > all the 32bit arm builds and change armhf to that. Maybe someone can
> > do that while I prepare the initial package set cross built.  
> 
> Initial bootstrap build completed.
> 
> Packages are at:
> http://dev.alpinelinux.org/~tteras/armv7/
> 
> Let's start a new edge builder using those.

Looks like we need add more diskspace for this.

Carlo, can you help us with this?

-nc




---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Michael Wyraz
Details
Message ID
<d2caf2ae-34dd-3d26-7a70-3d3a9db9c54f@wyraz.de>
In-Reply-To
<20180919185033.3a981b15@vostro> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537382319
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hello,

the new arch support is great but I hope you keep armv6 alive. E.g. many 
Raspberry (including "zero" Models from 2017 and 2018) are armv6. 
Alpine, especially in "diskless" mode is ideal for that kind of devices.

Kind regards,

Michael.


> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:43:02 +0300
> Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> @ncopa What do you think?
>>> I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf
>>> as armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with
>>> armv7? Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i
>>> understand things correctly.
>>>   
>> Let's keep armhf still for a while. I suggest we bootstrap armv7 on
>> x86-64 and start new builder edge/armv7. Once all builds, we can poll
>> how many still need armhf.
>>
>> And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was
>> armhf equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter.
>>
>> I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere.
>>
>> Meanwhile, we probably want to patch aports to change all arch places
>> from armhf to armhf+armv7, or potentially add "arm" as umbrella for
>> all the 32bit arm builds and change armhf to that. Maybe someone can
>> do that while I prepare the initial package set cross built.
> Initial bootstrap build completed.
>
> Packages are at:
> http://dev.alpinelinux.org/~tteras/armv7/
>
> Let's start a new edge builder using those.
>
> Timo
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
>


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Oliver Smith
Details
Message ID
<5f8a50d7-0fe4-7fed-2a13-e1f116285fde@bitmessage.ch>
In-Reply-To
<d2caf2ae-34dd-3d26-7a70-3d3a9db9c54f@wyraz.de> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1537419960
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Michael Wyraz:
> Hello,
> 
> the new arch support is great but I hope you keep armv6 alive. E.g. many
> Raspberry (including "zero" Models from 2017 and 2018) are armv6.
> Alpine, especially in "diskless" mode is ideal for that kind of devices.

If that is possible, I'm also in favor of keeping armhf around (for the
relevant Raspberry Pis, and so we can support armv6 phones in
postmarketOS). I thought it was unrealistic, that's why I proposed to
replace it.

> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Michael.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:43:02 +0300
>> Timo Teräs <timo.teras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> @ncopa What do you think?
>>>> I am in favor of this too. Do we need add armv7 while keeping armhf
>>>> as armv6? Or can we simply replace the current armhf build with
>>>> armv7? Then the triplet would correspond better with debian, if i
>>>> understand things correctly.
>>>>   
>>> Let's keep armhf still for a while. I suggest we bootstrap armv7 on
>>> x86-64 and start new builder edge/armv7. Once all builds, we can poll
>>> how many still need armhf.
>>>
>>> And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was
>>> armhf equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter.
>>>
>>> I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, we probably want to patch aports to change all arch places
>>> from armhf to armhf+armv7, or potentially add "arm" as umbrella for
>>> all the 32bit arm builds and change armhf to that. Maybe someone can
>>> do that while I prepare the initial package set cross built.

I did the armhf+armv7 solution here:
https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/5208

>> Initial bootstrap build completed.
>>
>> Packages are at:
>> http://dev.alpinelinux.org/~tteras/armv7/
>>
>> Let's start a new edge builder using those.
>>
>> Timo

Wow, I did not expect that someone starts working on it right away.
Thank you Timo, this is awesome!

Best regards,
Oliver



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---