Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:10:07 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: spam@ipik.org
Cc: Alpine develmopment <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: Can we drop armhf (armv6) after v3.12?
Message-ID: <20200817121007.4f737276@ncopa-desktop.lan>
In-Reply-To: <39849A61-BF46-4A4A-A03A-EB004109153C@ipik.org>
References: <20200528104748.4d37ede5@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	<B10D4884-BC26-4ADE-8FBB-0AEF787E1831@ipik.org>
	<39849A61-BF46-4A4A-A03A-EB004109153C@ipik.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:51:20 +0200
spam@ipik.org wrote:

> Dear Natanael,
>=20
> Have you come to a definitive conclusion on this particular matter?
> Thank you for consideration and feedback.

Hi, sorry late response. As Ariadne said, we will keep armhf for now,
but do it on a best effort basis. It means that if some package breaks
on armhf we will need help from upstream or other contributor to fix it
or the package will be removed from armhf repo.

-nc

>=20
> Regards.
> macmpi.
>=20
> > On 28 May 2020, at 11:19, spam@ipik.org wrote:
> >=20
> > Dear Natanael,
> >=20
> > While I understand supporting many platforms has a burden,
> > this proposal is a bit of concern as:
> >=20
> > - PiZeroW obsolescence is not planned until Jan 2026 at earliest
> > https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-zero-w/
> > We can expect Pi foundation & quite wide community will then
> > stay behind it, and provide patches, for most critical components.
> >=20
> > - PiZero is officially supported in upstream kernel, and we*ve not
> > seen any obsolescence notification yet (or I missed it)
> >=20
> > - Alpine is a platform of choice for low-ressorce devices, and PiZero
> > is a perfect illustration of such target.
> >=20
> > - While I do not have shipment volume info, it is expected that it
> > is a pretty big chunk of such tiny SBC category
> >=20
> >=20
> > Would a path with limited support for some demanding UI framework
> > make it easier to consider?
> > Many server usecase may not require such UI frameworks.
> >=20
> > I hope Alpine will keep armhf for few major releases.
> > Many thanks for consideration.
> >=20
> >  =20
> >> On 28 May 2020, at 10:47, Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> Hi!
> >>=20
> >> Can we drop the armhf architecture after 3.12 release?
> >>=20
> >> 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.
> >>=20
> >> 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.
> >>=20
> >> The reason is that there are increasing number of issues that are not
> >> fixed upstream. For example:
> >> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-65246
> >>=20
> >> 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.
> >>=20
> >> Are there any good reasons to why we should keep armhf?
> >>=20
> >> Are there other reasons to why we should drop it?
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> -nc
> >>=20
> >> PS. This was previously been discussed for 3.10 release:
> >> https://lists.alpinelinux.org/~alpine/devel/%3C20190404112525.4b04fdeb=
%40ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw%3E#%3CCAGP1gyPCsaHh+85g0QX-Cu40K-5Vd7xqLTV2aGi=
UgUr+RdrdFQ@mail.gmail.com%3E =20
> >  =20
>=20