hebasto
commented at 6:48 am on December 11, 2021:
member
There are no reasons to keep support for i686-linux-android host, which is actually broken in master (50c502f54abd9eb15c8ddca013f0fdfae3d132a9), and this fact has been unnoticed for months :)
DrahtBot
commented at 11:38 am on December 11, 2021:
member
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
Conflicts
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
#22555 (build: Fix make apk for Android w/ non-default SOURCES_PATH in depends by hebasto)
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
laanwj
commented at 3:47 pm on December 11, 2021:
member
Concept ACK. I don’t think this architecture (32-bit x86 android) is worth spending effort on, I expect there to be zero actual devices that use that.
(and if they exist they’ll take more than a month to synchronize, like my experiment with an old netbook, so effetively useless for this)
icota
commented at 8:08 am on December 12, 2021:
contributor
Concept ACK with a suggestion to drop armv7a-linux-android while we’re at it. Such devices were last seen on the market in ~2015 and I don’t think they are powerful enough to run Bitcoin.
hebasto force-pushed
on Dec 12, 2021
hebasto
commented at 12:46 pm on December 12, 2021:
member
Concept ACK with a suggestion to drop armv7a-linux-android while we’re at it. Such devices were last seen on the market in ~2015 and I don’t think they are powerful enough to run Bitcoin.
hebasto renamed this:
build, qt: Drop support for `i686-linux-android` host
build, qt: Drop Android 32-bit support
on Dec 12, 2021
hebasto
commented at 3:41 pm on December 12, 2021:
member
luke-jr
commented at 7:17 pm on December 12, 2021:
member
Concept ACK with a suggestion to drop armv7a-linux-android while we’re at it. Such devices were last seen on the market in ~2015 and I don’t think they are powerful enough to run Bitcoin.
How can we verify this? IIRC, aren’t some modern devices with AArch64-capable chips still running a 32-bit ARM OS anyway?
icota
commented at 8:35 am on December 13, 2021:
contributor
How can we verify this? IIRC, aren’t some modern devices with AArch64-capable chips still running a 32-bit ARM OS anyway?
You seem to be right. To protest Pokemon Go dropping 32-bit someone compiled a list of phones sold as recently as 2019 running 32-bit Android (even though most 64-bit capable).
we still haven’t officially released the Android version
our capacity to maintain Android builds is kind of thin
So I would still recommend dropping armv7a-linux-android
jarolrod
commented at 8:46 am on December 13, 2021:
member
I don’t know how i feel about this
Arm has recently announced that all of there cpu’s will be 64 bit starting in 2023. In there announcement, they state that 2% of mobile devices around the world are 32 bit. Going off that, it seems like this would be ok to do. But, some cheaper android phones have a 64 bit CPU yet run a 32 bit android OS. An example of such device is the Xiaomi Redmi 8a which was released in 2019. Additionally, these 32 bit androids are most likely the cheapest devices in poorer markets.
It seems to me that it’s not yet time to cut out 32 bit android support.
hebasto
commented at 11:51 am on December 13, 2021:
member
We still support some archs that are not in our releases, e.g., i686-pc-linux-gnu, riscv32-linux-gnu, s390x-linux-gnu.
Assuming that aarch64-linux-android goes to the releases eventually, it’s no harm to keep support for armv7a-linux-android. And it have no extra cost for its code for now.
Dropping of armv7a-linux-android support could come naturally :)
laanwj
commented at 1:06 pm on December 13, 2021:
member
~0 about dropping 32 bit for Android. In general, ARM and RISC-V 32 bit are still feasible architectures so please don’t drop support for building for them project-wide (FWIW it’s definitely possible to run a node on 32-bit ARM). That said, maybe not for Android.
luke-jr
commented at 5:01 pm on December 13, 2021:
member
We can always drop 32-bit ARM Android support later. But from that list, right now it sounds like it’s still common.
DrahtBot
commented at 5:36 pm on December 13, 2021:
member
DrahtBot removed the label
DrahtBot Guix build requested
on Dec 13, 2021
icota
commented at 5:49 pm on December 13, 2021:
contributor
Having read the comments and having spoken to @hebasto today I agree we keep armv7a-linux-android for now. Perhaps we can use a special occasion like the fourth halving to drop it in style.
hebasto force-pushed
on Dec 14, 2021
hebasto renamed this:
build, qt: Drop Android 32-bit support
build, qt: Drop support for i686-linux-android host
on Dec 14, 2021
hebasto
commented at 11:17 am on December 14, 2021:
member
It’s nice we have a consensus about keeping support of armv7a-linux-android.
So reverted back to 66a20a54a2a8446e6257b872a161089e0eed1688. The OP and the title has been also reverted back.
prusnak approved
prusnak
commented at 6:23 pm on December 14, 2021:
contributor
utACK66a20a54a2a8446e6257b872a161089e0eed1688
laanwj merged this
on Dec 15, 2021
laanwj closed this
on Dec 15, 2021
hebasto deleted the branch
on Dec 16, 2021
sidhujag referenced this in commit
a1d51815f0
on Dec 16, 2021
hebasto added the label
Android
on Dec 29, 2021
hebasto referenced this in commit
1b2e1d179c
on Jun 5, 2022
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2024-12-21 15:12 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me