replace arm/v6 images and binaries with arm/v7 #364

earl-warren commented 2025年06月12日 23:24:18 +02:00

arm/v6 were built originally because they can be used for arm/v7 and arm/v6 and also because arm/v7 builds failed in obscure ways. The build process has been entirely refactored since but the arm/v6 stayed: it is a breaking change.

The following pull request proposes to obsolete arm/v6 because it is likely not used by anyone on a machine that requires it. For people who have an arm/v7 and use arm/v6, resolving the breaking change will mean that they have to manually replace v6 with v7 and nothing more.

forgejo/forgejo#8173

The motivation for this change is both:

• Less and less packages that Forgejo depends on are actually tested and used on arm/v6. While this does not matter much for those that are not architecture dependent, it will eventually create issues for those that are. And they will be very difficult to track down.
• While working on resolving an issue with https://github.com/klauspost/compress/, it was noticed that this package has architecture dependent code and only builds for arm/v7, not arm/v6. Although it still works at this time, it is a clue that it may not in the future. And that this is not going to improve over time.

Since there is no urgent motivation for this deprecation, it can be postponed. But it will need to happen eventually.

It only happens starting with v13 and v11 continues to ship with v6 until mid 2026.

arm/v6 were built originally because they can be used for arm/v7 and arm/v6 and also because arm/v7 builds failed in obscure ways. The build process has been entirely refactored since but the arm/v6 stayed: it is a breaking change. The following pull request proposes to obsolete arm/v6 because it is likely not used by anyone on a machine that requires it. For people who have an arm/v7 and use arm/v6, resolving the breaking change will mean that they have to manually replace v6 with v7 and nothing more. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8173 The motivation for this change is both: - Less and less packages that Forgejo depends on are actually tested and used on arm/v6. While this does not matter much for those that are not architecture dependent, it will eventually create issues for those that are. And they will be very difficult to track down. - While working on resolving an issue with https://github.com/klauspost/compress/, it was noticed that this package has architecture dependent code and only builds for arm/v7, not arm/v6. Although it still works at this time, it is a clue that it may not in the future. And that this is not going to improve over time. Since there is no urgent motivation for this deprecation, it can be postponed. But it will need to happen eventually. It only happens starting with v13 and v11 continues to ship with v6 until mid 2026.

fnetX commented 2025年06月12日 23:34:46 +02:00

Is this for information only, or for a discussion? I do agree to deprecation of arm/v6. Assuming it only happens starting with v12 and v11 continues to ship with v6 for at least another year, this should be even less of an issue.

Is this for information only, or for a discussion? I do agree to deprecation of arm/v6. Assuming it only happens starting with v12 and v11 continues to ship with v6 for at least another year, this should be even less of an issue.

earl-warren commented 2025年06月12日 23:37:49 +02:00

This is for discussion really. There is no pressure so it is up for debate.

This is for discussion really. There is no pressure so it is up for debate.

earl-warren commented 2025年06月12日 23:39:32 +02:00

@fnetX wrote in #364 (comment):

Assuming it only happens starting with v12 and v11 continues to ship with v6 for at least another year, this should be even less of an issue.

Right, this should not be backported. I added a line to the description, good point.

@fnetX wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/364#issuecomment-5109909: > Assuming it only happens starting with v12 and v11 continues to ship with v6 for at least another year, this should be even less of an issue. Right, this should not be backported. I added a line to the description, good point.

n0toose commented 2025年07月01日 18:39:36 +02:00

The most popular consumer device I can come up with right now that would be affected by this is the original Raspberry Pi afaik.

The most popular consumer device I can come up with right now that would be affected by this is the original Raspberry Pi afaik.

earl-warren commented 2025年07月02日 06:31:39 +02:00

It won't happen for v12 in any case, the branch is cut.

It won't happen for v12 in any case, the branch is cut.

fnetX commented 2025年07月02日 13:14:56 +02:00

It might be worth pointing it out in the release notes, just in case. Otherwise, I imagine the following could happen:

• someone is currently using arm/v6 on the LTS branch (v11)
• they upgrade to v12
• they realize they cannot conveniently upgrade to v13 without building for themself

What would be better:

• someone is using arm/v6 on v11
• they read the release notes that mention that v12 will be the last version that supports arm/v6 and suggests staying on v11 for another year of security support
• they continue using v11 while their arm/v6 device can get another year of good use

It might be worth pointing it out in the release notes, just in case. Otherwise, I imagine the following could happen: * someone is currently using arm/v6 on the LTS branch (v11) * they upgrade to v12 * they realize they cannot conveniently upgrade to v13 without building for themself What would be better: * someone is using arm/v6 on v11 * they read the release notes that mention that v12 will be the last version that supports arm/v6 and suggests staying on v11 for another year of security support * they continue using v11 while their arm/v6 device can get another year of good use

Beowulf commented 2025年07月02日 16:36:50 +02:00

@n0toose wrote in #364 (comment):

The most popular consumer device I can come up with right now that would be affected by this is the original Raspberry Pi afaik.

I think it would be pretty bad if we drop support for Pis.

1. It is advertised on every dashboard https://v13.next.forgejo.org
2. It is also often used in other adverts: Forgejo is lightweight and even runs on a Pi
3. I see a lot of people writing (in the fediverse) that they host Forgejo on a Pi

I think at this point we shouldn't drop arm/v6 builds... 🤔

@n0toose wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/364#issuecomment-5677100: > The most popular consumer device I can come up with right now that would be affected by this is the original Raspberry Pi afaik. I think it would be pretty bad if we drop support for Pis. 1. It is advertised on every dashboard https://v13.next.forgejo.org 2. It is also often used in other adverts: Forgejo is lightweight and even runs on a Pi 3. I see a lot of people writing (in the fediverse) that they host Forgejo on a Pi I think at this point we shouldn't drop arm/v6 builds... 🤔

Gusted commented 2025年07月02日 16:40:08 +02:00

I think @n0toose meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor, the newer ones have ARMv7 or ARMv8.

I think @n0toose meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor, the newer ones have ARMv7 or ARMv8.

Beowulf commented 2025年07月02日 16:44:26 +02:00

@Gusted wrote in #364 (comment):

meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor

Ah, right. Got an incorrect list which displayed wrong infos. I think dropping RP1 and theoretically RP Zero, is fine

@Gusted wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/364#issuecomment-5686445: > meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor Ah, right. Got an incorrect list which displayed wrong infos. I think dropping RP1 and theoretically RP Zero, is fine

n0toose commented 2025年07月02日 20:11:11 +02:00

It is also often used in other adverts: Forgejo is lightweight and even runs on a Pi

We should modify the advert though in that case :P

> It is also often used in other adverts: Forgejo is lightweight and even runs on a Pi We should modify the advert though in that case :P

earl-warren commented 2025年07月04日 10:17:40 +02:00

A pull request was proposed to add arm/v7 which can happen even if the decision to deprecate arm/v6 is not concluded yet.

forgejo/forgejo#8409

A pull request was proposed to add arm/v7 which can happen even if the decision to deprecate arm/v6 is not concluded yet. https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/8409

earl-warren commented 2025年07月04日 10:18:53 +02:00

The deprecation missed the v12 deadline and the description was updated to suggest v13 instead.

The deprecation missed the v12 deadline and the description was updated to suggest v13 instead.

crystal commented 2025年07月05日 10:27:34 +02:00

@Beowulf wrote in #364 (comment):

@Gusted wrote in #364 (comment):

meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor

Ah, right. Got an incorrect list which displayed wrong infos. I think dropping RP1 and theoretically RP Zero, is fine

The RPi 1 is long obsolete and difficult to obtain unless you already had one back in the day, so I don't really oppose dropping support for that. I do think we should give more consideration to dropping support for the RPi Zero because the Zero W is still produced and sold in large quantities. The Zero 2 W (削除) does only cost 5ドル more (削除ここまで) and has a 64-bit quad-core CPU, but Forgejo worked well on the original Pi Zero W last time I checked, and I do think there is some benefit to retaining compatibility with all current Pi models.

We might also want to consider verifying that the armv7 binary will work on 32-bit Raspberry Pi OS for the Pi 2/3/4. It should work fine, but the Raspberry Pi OS libraries are compiled specifically for the Raspberry Pi 1's architecture, which is essentially armv6 with some extensions to make things faster. The Raspberry Pi 2 is just as obsolete and unobtainable as the Pi 1, but the Raspberry Pi Foundation was still suggesting running the 32-bit version of the OS no matter which model you have until well after the Pi 4 came out.

EDIT: Apparently they've increased of the price of the Pi Zero W since the last time I checked, so now the Zero W and Zero 2 W are the same, and yet, it is still being produced and sold to consumers.

@Beowulf wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/364#issuecomment-5686505: > @Gusted wrote in #364 (comment): > > > meant RPI 1 which has a ARMv6 processor > > Ah, right. Got an incorrect list which displayed wrong infos. I think dropping RP1 and theoretically RP Zero, is fine The RPi 1 is long obsolete and difficult to obtain unless you already had one back in the day, so I don't really oppose dropping support for that. I do think we should give more consideration to dropping support for the RPi Zero because the Zero W is still produced and sold in large quantities. The Zero 2 W ~~does only cost 5ドル more~~ and has a 64-bit quad-core CPU, but Forgejo worked well on the original Pi Zero W last time I checked, and I do think there is some benefit to retaining compatibility with all current Pi models. We might also want to consider verifying that the armv7 binary will work on 32-bit Raspberry Pi OS for the Pi 2/3/4. It should work fine, but the Raspberry Pi OS libraries are compiled specifically for the Raspberry Pi 1's architecture, which is essentially armv6 with some extensions to make things faster. The Raspberry Pi 2 is just as obsolete and unobtainable as the Pi 1, but the Raspberry Pi Foundation was still suggesting running the 32-bit version of the OS no matter which model you have until well after the Pi 4 came out. EDIT: Apparently they've increased of the price of the Pi Zero W since the last time I checked, so now the Zero W and Zero 2 W are the same, and yet, it is still being produced and sold to consumers.

earl-warren commented 2025年07月05日 14:58:23 +02:00

@earl-warren wrote in #364 (comment):

A pull request was proposed to add arm/v7 which can happen even if the decision to deprecate arm/v6 is not concluded yet.

forgejo/forgejo#8409

Blocked until https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-build-publish/issues/41 is implemented.

@earl-warren wrote in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/364#issuecomment-5707832: > A pull request was proposed to add arm/v7 which can happen even if the decision to deprecate arm/v6 is not concluded yet. > > forgejo/forgejo#8409 Blocked until https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/forgejo-build-publish/issues/41 is implemented.