X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [74.117.190.25]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F985C6433 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:53:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5A9E1F6A; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:53:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw (67.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: alpine@tanael.org) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94D149E1F67; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:53:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:53:15 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: Timo Teras Cc: Timo =?ISO-8859-1?B?VGVy5HM=?= , Oliver Smith , alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org, Carlo Landmeter Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Alpine and armv7 Message-ID: <20180919185315.42d150e0@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> In-Reply-To: <20180919185033.3a981b15@vostro> References: <144d0e30-3c17-66b9-b2b6-7671eb8b6f84@bitmessage.ch> <20180919154656.7c6dfb9b@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> <20180919185033.3a981b15@vostro> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:50:33 +0300 Timo Teras wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:43:02 +0300 > Timo Ter=E4s wrote: >=20 > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16.47 Natanael Copa, > > wrote: > > =20 > > > > @ncopa What do you think? =20 > > > > > > 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. > > > =20 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > And yes armv7 is more common now than armhf. Raspbian originally was > > armhf equivalent. Rpi1 was the only major benefiter. > >=20 > > I can bootstrap armv7 packages. And put them somewhere. > >=20 > > 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. =20 >=20 > Initial bootstrap build completed. >=20 > Packages are at: > http://dev.alpinelinux.org/~tteras/armv7/ >=20 > 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 ---