Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 08:36:16PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
>On 2023-11-11 18:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive
>> > > at this point?
>> >
>> > Not that I have seen. I didn't think anything other than the IXP ever
>> > really used big endian and that's a long time ago. arm64ilp32 seems
>> > to serve less purpose than x32 did (and x32 doesn't seem to be doing
>> > much either). Certainly looks essentially dead at this point.
>>
>> While scanning the libc-alpha list recently I read [M] that arm64ilp32
>> was never upstreamed in Linux nor glibc? If so, I think there's little
>> point in carrying the arch definitions in dpkg, and I guess that would
>> not make the cut if requested now (for reference this was requested in
>> bug #824742). Does anyone know whether it was ever used or it is being
>> used even if privately/internally somewhere?
>
>It was being used internally/developmentally for a while (at CISCO)
>but, as you observe, only with large kernel and toolchain
>patches. Various groups dragged their feet on this to disourage it
>becoming a thing we'd all have to maintain for years. I was doing the
>debian development at ARM at the time and the bootstrap was never
>completed. A few people (largely just CISCO) wanted it quite
>badly. Nearly everyone else thought it was not worth the maintenance
>effort. No-one has asked about it for quite a few years now (last mail
>Oct 2018) so I think we can assume that it is indeed dead and no-one
>would notice for years/ever if you removed it from dpkg.
+1 on the story and on dropping it.
>> For armeb, I assume it was properly upstreamed at the time, and it was
>> actually used, even if it's currently not in use (like arm) I see tons
>> of references in Sources files, and thus removing the arch definitions
>> for either of these would not be safe right now I think.
>
>It is obsolete. It probably doesn't work any more having been unused
>since the early days of the NSLU2/Sarge (circa 2006/2007). It might
>still have been in use till 2011ish?. As you say it should probably be
>removed from upstream sources before it is removed from
>dpkg. Interesting question on how much effort (if any) (and when)
>should be applied to tidying up stuff like this which is simply no
>longer in use. If/when 'arm' is removed 'armeb' should certainly go
>with it.
armeb was mostly before my involvement in any arm stuff, as Wookey
says. It did at least have some life as a functioning port, at
least. I'd agree on leaving it in place for now, assuming it's not
causing any trouble in terms of maintenance / support.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane
Reply to: