Re: expected baseline changes for forky

* Simon McVittie <[email protected]> [260813 13:44]:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 at 13:00:41 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 12:53 +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
>The use case for armv8-support on armhf would be a piece of software 
>that has to be compiled as 32-bit for ABI compatibility reasons, but 
>requires ARMv8 CPU functionality, and therefore has:
>
>    Depends armv8-support [armhf]
>
>Bastien, are you aware of any specific pieces of software on armhf 
>that have this requirement, or are you adding a check and a package 
>speculatively in case a package needs it in future? On x86, there's a 
>lot of legacy binary-only software that requires 32-bit libraries to 
>continue to exist on x86_64 (mostly games), but I wasn't aware that 
>armhf had a similar legacy binary requirement (and if it does, we'll 
>have broken a lot of it anyway, by doing the 64-bit time_t 
>transition).

My understanding was that (some) new CPUs for arm64 don't even 
support a full set of the 32bit instructions.

I think we really should only add this (and also the other 
packages!) if there is a real demand for each package.

Best,
Chris