Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?

Guillem Jover <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.devel.dpkg.general,gmane.linux.debian.ports.arm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
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? I'd think that could be a
good argument to make an exception, and keep this for a while still. I
see no usage of this arch in Debian Sources files for example, so it'd
seem safe to remove the arch definition in the Debian context.

[M] <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-November/152521.html>

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.

Thanks,
Guillem
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.