For discussion of Alpine Linux development and developer support

11 10

[alpine-devel] Should we drop armhf (armv6) support with 3.10 release?

Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20190404112525.4b04fdeb@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
Sender timestamp
1554369925
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
that we have armv7?

In practice it means that we no longer support Raspberry PI 1 and Zero.

We will still support those with alpine v3.9 for another year.

I believe dropping armhf (armv6) will save some resources when it comes
to managing build servers, disk space, spending time on fixing armhf
specific problems.

We may also optimize the vanilla kernel better for armv7, which
currently uses same config as armv6.

What do you think, can we drop armhf for v3.10 or should we wait til
v3.11?

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
C H
Details
Message ID
<CACYPpV9X5LQZmSP0YRGzPHbOfET3M1YMt+UWpFEvDOUqZqNyPA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<CAGG_d8B3YneeSkHhXOP66qQ0gmBHrVZVo_eg2QsBESHQ+vxE5Q@mail.gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554375990
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 06:27 Leonardo Arena <rnalrd@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:25 AM Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
>> that we have armv7?
>>
>>
> +1
>
> /eo
>

I'm new 'round here, but that might be sufficient motivation for a 4.0
release, especially coupled with the other proposed changes -- GCC 9, maybe
the python refactor, etc..

Is there precedent for rolling major version numbers?

>
Leonardo Arena
Details
Message ID
<CAGG_d8B3YneeSkHhXOP66qQ0gmBHrVZVo_eg2QsBESHQ+vxE5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20190404112525.4b04fdeb@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554373617
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:25 AM Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> that we have armv7?
>
>
+1

/eo
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20190404133001.1822723d@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To
<CACYPpV9X5LQZmSP0YRGzPHbOfET3M1YMt+UWpFEvDOUqZqNyPA@mail.gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554377401
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:06:30 -0400
C H <flydinslip@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 06:27 Leonardo Arena <rnalrd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:25 AM Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
> > wrote:
> >  
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> >> that we have armv7?
> >>
> >>  
> > +1
> >
> > /eo
> >  
> 
> I'm new 'round here, but that might be sufficient motivation for a 4.0
> release, especially coupled with the other proposed changes -- GCC 9, maybe
> the python refactor, etc..
> 
> Is there precedent for rolling major version numbers?
> 

We changed from alpine 1.x to 2.x when there was an ABI breaking change
in uClibc.

We changed from alpine 2.x to 3.x when we moved from uClibc to musl
libc.

In both those occasions an upgrade meant a full re-install. Older
packages would not work with new release.

Now, in practice, we do full reinstall every release anyway. `apk
upgrade -U -a` will replace all packages, so major version number roll
does not matter that much.

We have been talking about do 4.0 release with apk-tools 3.0, which will
have incompatible database format. That project is stalled though.

*If* we would ever switch to GNU libc, that would qualify for major
version number roll. But there are no plans for that, and will
hopefully never be.

So basically, the idea with use 3.10 was that we follow something
similar to semver, but I don't have strong opinion there. I think "4.0"
looks better than "3.10". On the other hand "3.11" can be fun. Alpine
Linux 3.11 for workgroups...


 -nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Pablo Rogina
Details
Message ID
<CAL5OxRu=0YBQo-seiMUbkKoTRDiQAVin5hD7iozhJjYWwXYO2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<6e9bdc16-0edc-4b59-a8e7-8518e3a0aa4c@gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554398606
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
>> If we have to drop armhf any time soon (which is understandable
>> considering the resources you have mentioned), then I would suggest to
>> do it in 3.11 and explicitly mention it in the 3.10 release notes.

+1


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Milan P. Stanić
Details
Message ID
<20190404141025.GA8911@arya.arvanta.net>
In-Reply-To
<20190404112525.4b04fdeb@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554387025
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 11:25, Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> that we have armv7?
> 
> In practice it means that we no longer support Raspberry PI 1 and Zero.
> 
> We will still support those with alpine v3.9 for another year.
> 
> I believe dropping armhf (armv6) will save some resources when it comes
> to managing build servers, disk space, spending time on fixing armhf
> specific problems.
> 
> We may also optimize the vanilla kernel better for armv7, which
> currently uses same config as armv6.
> 
> What do you think, can we drop armhf for v3.10 or should we wait til
> v3.11?

Although I don't use armhf anymore, upgraded last box about two weeks
ago, I think that the armhf is used on a lot of small and old SBC's.
Alpine works very well on these old SBC's because it is small, fast and
not memory or CPU hungry as most other non musl distribution are.

I don't have strong opinion on that, but think a lot of people will be
disappointed if armhf vanished from Alpine.

-- 
regards


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Oliver Smith
Details
Message ID
<b0f45016-4845-ce94-2799-b94fac856fe6@bitmessage.ch>
In-Reply-To
<20190404112525.4b04fdeb@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554397320
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hello Natanael,

I would strongly prefer if we don't drop armhf on such short notice. As
you know, postmarketOS uses Alpine's repositories (with some extra
packages on top). We have device specific packages for each phone /
other target device, and right now there are only 16 armv7 devices
compared to 80 armhf devices.

If we have to drop armhf any time soon (which is understandable
considering the resources you have mentioned), then I would suggest to
do it in 3.11 and explicitly mention it in the 3.10 release notes.

Thanks,
Oliver

Natanael Copa:
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> that we have armv7?
> 
> In practice it means that we no longer support Raspberry PI 1 and Zero.
> 
> We will still support those with alpine v3.9 for another year.
> 
> I believe dropping armhf (armv6) will save some resources when it comes
> to managing build servers, disk space, spending time on fixing armhf
> specific problems.
> 
> We may also optimize the vanilla kernel better for armv7, which
> currently uses same config as armv6.
> 
> What do you think, can we drop armhf for v3.10 or should we wait til
> v3.11?
> 
> -nc
> 
> 
> ---
> 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
---
Francesco Colista
Details
Message ID
<f8fa2ac3c317027d6b2271a6eb141d9e@alpinelinux.org>
In-Reply-To
<b0f45016-4845-ce94-2799-b94fac856fe6@bitmessage.ch> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554403378
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
April 4, 2019 7:02 PM, "Oliver Smith" <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch> wrote:

> I would strongly prefer if we don't drop armhf on such short notice. As
> you know, postmarketOS uses Alpine's repositories (with some extra
> packages on top). We have device specific packages for each phone /
> other target device, and right now there are only 16 armv7 devices
> compared to 80 armhf devices.
> If we have to drop armhf any time soon (which is understandable
> considering the resources you have mentioned), then I would suggest to
> do it in 3.11 and explicitly mention it in the 3.10 release notes.
> 

+1

.: Francesco Colista
.: Alpine Linux Core Dev Team


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Leonardo Arena
Details
Message ID
<6e9bdc16-0edc-4b59-a8e7-8518e3a0aa4c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<b0f45016-4845-ce94-2799-b94fac856fe6@bitmessage.ch> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554398243
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
I did not imagine there was such a large adoption among the phones.

I definitely reconsider my position. :)

Thanks!

Il giorno 4 apr 2019, 19:02, alle ore 19:02, Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch> ha scritto:
>Hello Natanael,
>
>I would strongly prefer if we don't drop armhf on such short notice. As
>you know, postmarketOS uses Alpine's repositories (with some extra
>packages on top). We have device specific packages for each phone /
>other target device, and right now there are only 16 armv7 devices
>compared to 80 armhf devices.
>
>If we have to drop armhf any time soon (which is understandable
>considering the resources you have mentioned), then I would suggest to
>do it in 3.11 and explicitly mention it in the 3.10 release notes.
>
>Thanks,
>Oliver
>
>Natanael Copa:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
>> that we have armv7?
>> 
>> In practice it means that we no longer support Raspberry PI 1 and
>Zero.
>> 
>> We will still support those with alpine v3.9 for another year.
>> 
>> I believe dropping armhf (armv6) will save some resources when it
>comes
>> to managing build servers, disk space, spending time on fixing armhf
>> specific problems.
>> 
>> We may also optimize the vanilla kernel better for armv7, which
>> currently uses same config as armv6.
>> 
>> What do you think, can we drop armhf for v3.10 or should we wait til
>> v3.11?
>> 
>> -nc
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 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
>---
Corvin Wimmer
Details
Message ID
<A5B7FCF9-6121-4B53-B309-AEC4A383CD30@corv.in>
In-Reply-To
<20190404112525.4b04fdeb@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554627088
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
> On 4. Apr 2019, at 16:25, Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder if can drop armhf (armv6) support with the 3.10 release, now
> that we have armv7?
> 
> In practice it means that we no longer support Raspberry PI 1 and Zero.
> 
> We will still support those with alpine v3.9 for another year.
> 
> I believe dropping armhf (armv6) will save some resources when it comes
> to managing build servers, disk space, spending time on fixing armhf
> specific problems.
> 
> We may also optimize the vanilla kernel better for armv7, which
> currently uses same config as armv6.
> 
> What do you think, can we drop armhf for v3.10 or should we wait til
> v3.11?
> 
> -nc
> 
> 
> ---
> Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
> 

Dear Nathanael, Alpine developers and users,

We have been happily using the armv6 images for our project after switching from Raspbian for 6 months now. 

Alpine has been a breath of fresh air and we would very much like to continue building on top of this unique distribution. 

The fact that Alpine is also designed to run from RAM and is so lightweight makes it a perfect fit for SBCs and other embedded low powered devices. 

Currently we find it especially convenient that an identical image can be built for every Raspberry Pi on the market.

Honestly, the roadmap has taken us by surprise and we might not have chosen Alpine had we known that support for Raspberry Zero was being dropped this soon.

We fully understand that Alpine has limited resources and you want to focus where it matters. 

In my humble opinion, it would be wonderful to see support for alternative architectures such as ARM and RISC be increased rather than reduced. 

We are fully committed to Alpine and plan to upstream patches to installation scripts and continue to help improve Raspberry support where we can.

Please let me know if there are specific resources the project is worried about where we could help. 

I would be delighted to continue working with Alpine for as long as possible. 

In either case, I’d like to extend my thanks to you and the other developers for their contributions.

Regards,
Corvin Wimmer


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Kaspar Schleiser
Details
Message ID
<d251a373-d8c1-743a-0fe9-a02f1ad98b9f@schleiser.de>
In-Reply-To
<20190404141025.GA8911@arya.arvanta.net> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554713131
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hello,

On 4/4/19 4:10 PM, Milan P. Stanić wrote:
> Alpine works very well on these old SBC's because it is small, fast and
> not memory or CPU hungry as most other non musl distribution are.
> 
> I don't have strong opinion on that, but think a lot of people will be
> disappointed if armhf vanished from Alpine.

+1

Kaspar


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Carl Chave
Details
Message ID
<CAGP1gyPCsaHh+85g0QX-Cu40K-5Vd7xqLTV2aGiUgUr+RdrdFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<A5B7FCF9-6121-4B53-B309-AEC4A383CD30@corv.in> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1554770731
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 8:52 AM Corvin Wimmer <mail@corv.in> wrote:
>
> Alpine has been a breath of fresh air and we would very much like to continue building on top of this unique distribution.
>
> The fact that Alpine is also designed to run from RAM and is so lightweight makes it a perfect fit for SBCs and other embedded low powered devices.
>

+1 from an Alpine newbie who came here specifically for armhf on the pi zero w.


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