Debian Bug report logs - #439832
Please include armel port in the archive

version graph

Package: ftp.debian.org; Maintainer for ftp.debian.org is Debian FTP Master <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>;

Reported by: Riku Voipio <riku@debian.org>

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:42:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Found in version n/a

Done: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, aurel32@debian.org, guillem@debian.org, joeyh@debian.org, wookey@debian.org, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Riku Voipio <riku@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to aurel32@debian.org, guillem@debian.org, joeyh@debian.org, wookey@debian.org, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Riku Voipio <riku@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Please include armel port in the archive
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:38:59 +0300
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Package: ftp.debian.org
Version: n/a, reported 27.8.2007
Severity: wishlist

This the request to include armel architecture in debian. We
believe that we can meet the archive criteria[1] reasonably
with the current state of the port.

Executive summary of the new port:

Armel is a port for litte-endian arm processors using
the Arm (ltd) defined ABI. This brings us better upstream
support for toolchain and libraries, soft-float[2] for
faster floats and support for thumb and vfp instruction sets
For very long explanation, see:

http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort

To the archive qualification questions[1]:

* Is port cursed?

No.

* Are machines available to general public?

Yes. The linksys Nslu-2 and Thecus N2100 are currently
best supported.

* Is full source available?

The port builds out of unmodified debian source packages. For
bootstrapping a selection modified package sources are available
in gnuab repository in the "unreleased" suite.

* Is this architecture related to other architectures already in the
  archive, or that also should be considered, either now or in the future?
  Can the related architectures be supported in a single architecture (eg,
  with a biarch arrangement)?

Armel and the current arm can run on many same CPU's. But with the
current arm port one cannot use all the features of modern ARM
CPU's, such as thumb instruction set or VFP floating point units.

A kernel built with armel port can run most binaries of the old ABI if
a compatability option is enabled, but not the other way around. Being
a embedded architecture, where storage space may be scarce, a biarch
solution would be really wastfull. Both users and developers are
uninterested in biarch or similar solution.

* Are there 3 or more developers (or n-ms) actively maintaining the port?
Who are they?

Currently the most active DD porters are:

Riku Voipio
Aurelian Jarno
Joey Hess
Guillem Jover
wookey

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html

* What sort of architecture is this?

Embedded/PDA. subnotebook/Thin client style desktops
might come out as well.

* Does it have any users?

Armel is being used by Nokia on their Internet Tablets
(n800, 770), unkown amount sold. Compatability with them
is one goal of Debian armel project. Armel is also being
used by ADS and some other embedded users.

* Is there kernel and toolchain support? At what level? Are the latest
  versions supported, or are legacy releases required for compatability
  with some hardware?

The port buildd's are now running gcc-4.2 on latest (2.6.23-rc3)
kernels. The problems is slightly opposite, it's the legacy toolchains
(gcc < 4.1) that do not have armel support. Debian still has large
chunks of code that needs gcc 3.x to build...

Armel toolchains are still missing Obj-C, java and g77 support.

* Has the ABI stabalised, or are there major ABI changes coming up?

None that I'm aware of.

* How do you install a system?

Using debian-installer from

http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/daily/

Instructions will come part of normal d-i installation manual.

* Has a buildd been setup? How much of the archive has been built (count
by source package, builds of old versions are fine for this case)?

There is two buildd's running, using Aurelian Jarno's wanna-build
setup for kfreebsd-*. wanna-build-statistics for now.

Distribution unstable:
----------------------
Installed       :  6381 (buildd_armel: 2560, buildd_armel2: 2529,
                         unknown: 1292)
Needs-Build     :    32
Building        :    64 (buildd_armel: 31, buildd_armel2: 33)
Uploaded        :    19 (buildd_armel: 2, buildd_armel2: 17)
Failed          :    97 (buildd_armel: 47, buildd_armel2: 50)
Dep-Wait        :   533 (buildd_armel: 286, buildd_armel2: 244, unknown: 3)
Failed-Removed  :     3 (buildd_armel: 3)
Dep-Wait-Removed:     7 (buildd_armel: 1, buildd_armel2: 6)
Not-For-Us      :    57
total           :  7193

 89.42% up-to-date,  89.69% if also counting uploaded pkgs
  0.45% uncompiled
  0.90% currently building (short-term delay)
  8.83% failed or waiting (long-term delay)

Which is relatively representative of where the port has been
( 88-90% ) for the last weeks. All packages are built and
signed by DD's. There is a small chunk of out-of-date packages
in building, dep-wait and failed sections.

To get to the 95% region zone, we mostly need gcj, fortran,
objC/gnustep and ghc properly ported.

The TODO of the port is at:

http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiTodo

* What hardware is potentially available as a fast buildd?

Currently we use 2x 600Mhz Thecus N2100 machines with 512MB
of RAM. It's almost enough to keep upto date with sid. With
a third one we could keep up easily. These are commercially
available systems.

Fastest potentially available hardware is intel IOP34x
systems with 1.2Ghz CPU's with 2MB of cache with upto 2GB
of ram. These are available as developer boards atm.

* Is there any corporate support of this arch, and the
  Debian port in particular?

The new EABI arm abi is officially supported by ARM co.
Kernel and related stuff tends to be well commercially
supported by the vendors of the hardware. EABI toolchains
are supported by codesourcery. The debian port in
also has corporate support chances, especially when
the armel port gets official blessing.

* Is there an example box developers can login to to see if it works?

Developers can either use armel in qemu virtual machine (hmh,
some instructions surely would help here..), or ask me or
wookey for a account.

Thus we believe the port is ready for archive inclusion.
While it is not ready for Lenny release yet, if we get a
message from DSA and release team that it is a plausible
goal, we are ready to work hard to make it possible.

In case there is any questions, doubts or you wish us to
reach some specific goals before allowing armel, please
contact us. We want to avoid any kind of hiatus where
it is unclear what needs to be done and by who.

Best regards on behalf of the armel porting team,
 Riku Voipio

[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
[2] No current or future arm cpu has the fpu our current arm port.

-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>
To: 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:32:55 +0100
Heya,

From a release team point of view, it's quite interesting if armel is
going to make it into the archive before lenny. It's quality is at least
matching the current arm port at the moment and after lenny (at the
latest) we would like to drop the current arm. A release with both
architectures side by side would be nice for the transition.

Could you please comment on the current status and list outstanding
issues blocking the inclusion of armel in the archive?

Marc
-- 
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
212: Qualifizierter Support
       Ein Schuldiger kann benannt werden. (Martin Schmitt)




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>
To: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
Cc: 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:48:51 +0100
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >From a release team point of view, it's quite interesting if armel is
> going to make it into the archive before lenny. It's quality is at least
> matching the current arm port at the moment and after lenny (at the
> latest) we would like to drop the current arm. A release with both
> architectures side by side would be nice for the transition.
> 
> Could you please comment on the current status and list outstanding
> issues blocking the inclusion of armel in the archive?

Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to
have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only
armel (no arm anymore) after lenny.

IRC discussion with tbm showed that lenny should include both arm and
armel to give people a chance to switch from a supported arm to a
supported armel as people are still installing arm atm thinking that
arm will be supported on lenny...

Cheers

Luk




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
To: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>
Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org, 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:22:05 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:

> Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to
> have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only
> armel (no arm anymore) after lenny.

Armel is already where most of the work is done, and already at
last debconf we agreed that the best way to proceed would be to
release lenny with arm + armel and the drop arm. So, yes, we
can commit to that[1]. If there is still oldabi arm user demand,
we can support them using the debian-ports infrastructure with
relatively little effort.

> IRC discussion with tbm showed that lenny should include both arm and
> armel to give people a chance to switch from a supported arm to a
> supported armel

This is currently in the hands of ftp-masters, and Anthony Towns has
already agreed to add armel to the archive. Which, I think is totally
awesome :)

Cheers,
Riku

[1] I can ofcourse only speak of myself, but AFAIK other porters
agree.

-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Cc: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:22:06 +1100
* Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> [2008-01-31 01:22]:
> [1] I can ofcourse only speak of myself, but AFAIK other porters
> agree.

I think there's agreement on this.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Wookey <wookey@wookware.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Wookey <wookey@wookware.org>
To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Cc: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:23:22 +0000
On 2008-01-31 01:22 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> 
> > Note that we don't intend to include arm in lenny+1 and would like to
> > have a clear commitment from the arm/armel pointers to switch to only
> > armel (no arm anymore) after lenny.
> 
> Armel is already where most of the work is done, and already at
> last debconf we agreed that the best way to proceed would be to
> release lenny with arm + armel and the drop arm. So, yes, we
> can commit to that[1]. If there is still oldabi arm user demand,
> we can support them using the debian-ports infrastructure with
> relatively little effort.

Yep. That is all good. In line with Debconf consensus, and porter
direction, and having arm+armel for one release allows our users some
time for transition, so we are not 'pulling rug out' from under them.
Hopefully Strongarm/oldabi demand will not continue too long after
lenny+1, because oldabi will inevitably degrade slowly...

> > IRC discussion with tbm showed that lenny should include both arm and
> > armel to give people a chance to switch from a supported arm to a
> > supported armel
> 
> This is currently in the hands of ftp-masters, and Anthony Towns has
> already agreed to add armel to the archive. Which, I think is totally
> awesome :)

Indeed. 

Thanx to all for their efforts on this.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Balloonz - Toby Churchill - Aleph One - Debian
http://wookware.org/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>:
Bug#439832; Package ftp.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Martin Guy" <martinwguy@yahoo.it>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to James Troup and others <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 439832@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Martin Guy" <martinwguy@yahoo.it>
To: "Luk Claes" <luk@debian.org>
Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org, 439832@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:27:54 +0000
2008/1/30, Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > [armel]'s quality is at least matching the current arm port

> > Could you please comment on the current status and list outstanding
> > issues blocking the inclusion of armel in the archive?

Well, since no one else has actually answered the question...

In unstable, arm is at 95.69% of the archive, while armel is at 91.94%

Of the lacking packages, the lion's share is due to lack of language support.
gcc-3 is not supported in armel and never will be, which excludes g77
and everything that uses it. The success of armel therefore depends on
the success of the g77->gfortran transition.

Objective C does not work on armel, which knocks out gnustep. ARM are
now funding CodeSourcery to make the necessary modifications to gcc.
It remains to be seen which mainline version this will go into -
probably gcc-4.4, since 4.3 is now open only to regression fixes,
while lenny's current default gcc is 4.2 with some people pressing for
it to be 4.3. Debian may have to carry these modifications as patches.

Other packages either don't compile or don't work on armel, including
some that are included in the repository but do not work at all, of
which the most high-profile are iceweasel and iceape-browser.
Unfortunately there is currently no public bug tracker for issues
other than the wiki pages; that would be one advantage of inclusion in
lenny.

The advantage of armel over arm from a normal user's point of view is
the immense increase in floating point speed (a factor of 11) plus the
possibility of using current hardware FPUs (for a further factor of
between 2.5 and 7)
The disadvantage is that it requires armv4t processors, excluding
older ARMv4-based systems (CATS, NetWinder, Balloon 2). The simplest
way to circumvent this would be to patch the kernel to emulate the
missing BX instruction.

wiki.debian.org/armelLennyReleaseRecertification summarises its
certification status
wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiTodo givean overview of the main issues
wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiProblems is the closest we have to a public bug
tracker.

> arm will be supported on lenny...
I think that is highly desirable. The arm port is more mature and more
functional at present

    M




Reply sent to Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Riku Voipio <riku@debian.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 439832-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
To: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>
Cc: 439832-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#439832: Status of armel in the archive?
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:19:40 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 01:22:05AM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> This is currently in the hands of ftp-masters, and Anthony Towns has
> already agreed to add armel to the archive. Which, I think is totally
> awesome :)

Archive is now accepting armel packages. Thanks for everyones' efforts!


-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:29:42 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 24 20:03:44 2014; Machine Name: beach.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.