Received: from out1.migadu.com (out1.migadu.com [91.121.223.63])
	by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 295FF781B93
	for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 17:22:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dereferenced.org;
	s=default; t=1590686576;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=hwHiSkg8sgAyh34vyRqTAPukjdZo1N+gisZVTOmV4Pw=;
	b=JlBJ1n6kaPIjggIcluFJyduthLgWt5a5tV62arBHpphT0u7TK2mt3Iw8oHPGfPQIezKxCd
	m07iupfqG2vLuXHhYVz8ZebpejNxla6YDJkD8kKIZ/fb5zPISssm5BUcQaoyDHrjsRP3uZ
	0g68tZrrIe0uhppax7+bwag4reQr2pQ=
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
To: Alpine develmopment <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Cc: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: Can we drop armhf (armv6) after v3.12?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 11:22:50 -0600
Message-ID: <1687182.jfqktxE8f0@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20200528104748.4d37ede5@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
References: <20200528104748.4d37ede5@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 1.90

Hello,

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:47:48 AM MDT Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Can we drop the armhf architecture after 3.12 release?
> 
> It means that we will continue support armfh with 3.12 for two mor
> years, but edge and next release 3.13 will be without armhf.
> 
> This means that we effectively drop support for Raspberry pi 1 and
> raspberry pi zero which are armv6. This is also the hardware we have
> kernel for.

I think a better way to go is to continue providing the architecture, but as a 
"community supported" architecture.  I am working on a project to incubate 
architectures that cannot be included in upstream Alpine releases, and perhaps 
we could provide armhf under that umbrella.

These architectures would be rolling release and not supported for any formal 
lifecycle, e.g. they would be edge-only, and if they break, packages are 
disabled on them until somebody has time to fix them.

> The reason is that there are increasing number of issues that are not
> fixed upstream. For example:
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65246

This means, for example, that we would not ship Qt on armhf unless somebody 
steps up and fixes it.

> We will also need to rebuild all our 32 bit architectures from scratch
> when upgrading to musl 1.2 due to time64. It requires significant
> effort to do that and it would be nice to only need to do it for x86
> and armv7, and drop armhf.
> 
> Are there any good reasons to why we should keep armhf?

While it is a niche architecture now, I think it is worth keeping around in 
some form.  Perhaps under the "alpine ports" umbrella I discussed already.

Ariadne