Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <144d0e30-3c17-66b9-b2b6-7671eb8b6f84@bitmessage.ch>
In-Reply-To: <144d0e30-3c17-66b9-b2b6-7671eb8b6f84@bitmessage.ch>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Timo_Ter=C3=A4s?= <timo.teras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:38:56 +0300
Message-ID: <CABTJ_OdVBru74iPZ7At2vsguM3Xq+RxdXWtzG+aYQO_wZmN7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Alpine and armv7
To: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b88370057637da2f"

--000000000000b88370057637da2f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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
> ---
>
>

--000000000000b88370057637da2f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi,<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">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=3Darm that co=
vers armhf and armv7.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I =
suppose the main reason for going with armv6 was rpi1 which was the only rp=
i at the time.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">We had al=
so limited build power for arm, but the situation is much better now with a=
arch64 builders that can do arm too.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto">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...</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto">I would be in favor of starting armv7 builders now. And=
 maybe drop armhf a release cycle or two.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">@ncopa What do you think?</div></div><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 10.27 Oliver Smith, &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch">ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Alpine friends,<=
br>
<br>
<br>
how about providing packages for the armv7 architecture in Alpine?<br>
<br>
This has been discussed quite a few times in IRC and even proposed on<br>
the ML in 2015 [1], but not really with a result. I&#39;ve also talked to a=
<br>
few Alpine developers independently about it, and each time the result<br>
was basically, that they would want that.<br>
<br>
Let me re-iterate the common talking points:<br>
<br>
* What&#39;s the advantage?<br>
<br>
Programs would be optimized for armv7 instead of armv6, thus giving them<br=
>
a good speed improvement and smaller binaries due to thumb2.<br>
<br>
A more specific use case would be QT&#39;s QML framework, which has a JIT<b=
r>
compiler for armv7 but not for armv6 [2].<br>
<br>
* Which devices are armv6 anyway?<br>
<br>
The most relevant ones would be the Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero. Other than<br>
that, most arm devices are armv7 ones.<br>
<br>
* Replace armv6 with armv7? Or provide it as additional architecture?<br>
<br>
Initially I would have preferred to have armv7 as additional<br>
architecture. But of course that means it needs twice the resources, and<br=
>
getting that out of thin air doesn&#39;t seem to be realistic for Alpine. S=
o<br>
my opinion has shifted, I think replacing armv6 with armv7 would be nice<br=
>
already.<br>
<br>
Questions:<br>
* is there anyone who insists on Alpine keeping armv6 support?<br>
* what would be the steps required to get armv7 going with Alpine and<br>
how can I help out?<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Oliver<br>
<br>
[1]: <a href=3D"https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/5036.html" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.alpinelinux.org/=
alpine-devel/5036.html</a><br>
[2]: <a href=3D"https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pmaports/issues/75" rel=3D"=
noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://gitlab.com/postmarketOS/pm=
aports/issues/75</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Unsubscribe:=C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:alpine-devel%2Bunsubscribe@lists.alpin=
elinux.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">alpine-devel+unsubscribe@l=
ists.alpinelinux.org</a><br>
Help:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:alpine-devel%2Bhel=
p@lists.alpinelinux.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">alpine-devel+=
help@lists.alpinelinux.org</a><br>
---<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000b88370057637da2f--


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---