Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gitian: Remove Windows 32 bit build #15939

Merged
merged 2 commits into from May 9, 2019
Merged

Conversation

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke commented May 2, 2019

The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ script: |
set -e -o pipefail
WRAP_DIR=$HOME/wrapped
HOSTS="i686-w64-mingw32 x86_64-w64-mingw32"
HOSTS="x86_64-w64-mingw32"
Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 2, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks so bare. Almost makes me want to build a PPC64 Windows binary just for the sake of it. :)

Loading

Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke May 2, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you install windows on ppc even?

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 2, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

NT4 :p

Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

o dear I have been running bitcoin core on a 32-bit windows system for a few years now. Am I the last one? I'd like to upgrade to 0.18 please. Any chance of having 32-bit windows back, or is it too much bother?

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 6, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can't you use the 64-bit build?

Loading

Copy link
Contributor

@jeffrade jeffrade May 9, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll defer to someone who knows more than me, but can a 64-bit build run on a 32-bit machine?

Loading

@practicalswift
Copy link
Contributor

@practicalswift practicalswift commented May 2, 2019

Concept ACK

Loading

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj commented May 2, 2019

even in the unlikely case that we decide to restore it for 0.18, I think removing it for 0.19 is non-controversial
utACK faf0443

Loading

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

@DrahtBot DrahtBot commented May 2, 2019

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #15068 (Install icon & .desktop file to XDG data by luke-jr)

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.

Loading

@achow101
Copy link
Member

@achow101 achow101 commented May 2, 2019

utACK faf0443

Loading

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke added this to the 0.19.0 milestone May 2, 2019
@practicalswift
Copy link
Contributor

@practicalswift practicalswift commented May 3, 2019

utACK faf0443

Loading

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke commented May 3, 2019

Removed it from depends and travis as well

Loading

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake commented May 6, 2019

Concept ACK

Loading

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj commented May 6, 2019

This was bound to be a somewhat controversial decision: however one architecture per platform is great for maintenance-heavy outlier platforms such as Windows (and MacOSX). This allows for more focus in testing and, and hopefully a better user experience and better security, in time. Cross-compilation to windows is fraught with some risks, and they're minimized by only having one toolchain (mingw-w64) to check.

If you need a wider range of architectures it's better to stick with Linux, or one of the BSDs. Another option is to use a VM. I was about to suggest WSL, but there's no 32-bit support either!

Loading

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr commented May 6, 2019

I do think we should keep the Travis job around...

Loading

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

@DrahtBot DrahtBot commented May 6, 2019

Gitian builds for commit d7d7d31 (master):

Gitian builds for commit d102d5d (master and this pull):

Loading

@bitcoin bitcoin deleted a comment from DrahtBot May 6, 2019
@fanquake
Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake commented May 8, 2019

There's a few more win32 references that can be removed:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/master/doc/release-process.md#L224

subprocess.check_call('mv build/out/bitcoin-*win32-setup.exe ../bitcoin-binaries/'+args.version, shell=True)

Loading

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke commented May 8, 2019

Thanks, done

Loading

RUN_FUNCTIONAL_TESTS=false
GOAL="deploy"
BITCOIN_CONFIG="--enable-reduce-exports --disable-gui-tests"
Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's keep the Travis job...

Loading

Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why? I am not aware that this job ever failed and the win64 one didn't. Also, why would we want to waste resources on testing a target that we never ship?
I'd rather have freebsd tests than a win32 one.

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We ship source code.

Loading

Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is the responsibility of the user to run the tests. You could argue that many users don't run the tests on their target when they download the gitian binaries, but that doesn't apply here. If some users compile on their own, they need to run the tests themselves.

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Travis doesn't exist to run the tests. It exists to help us developers avoid doing things that will break the tests. (Running the tests is just how we accomplish that.)

Loading

Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Either we support win32, test and ship it, or we don't. There is no in-between.

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not agree. We support plenty of things we do not recommend or ship binaries for.

Indeed, the best approach is to compile yourself, which itself falls outside the "ship" scope.

Loading

Copy link
Member

@sdaftuar sdaftuar May 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW I agree with @MarcoFalke here -- seems like not a great use of travis resources to explicitly test a platform that we're no longer interested in continuing to support (who will debug problems if they are found?). On top of that, reducing the load on travis has benefits; I've noticed that the time I wait from updating a PR to having the travis jobs complete has ticked up recently. So I'd rather we not spend those travis cycles on win32 unless it was an important platform to test on for some reason, and the decision to drop it strikes me as a statement that it's not.

Loading

Copy link
Member

@luke-jr luke-jr May 9, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The decision not to provide binaries isn't necessarily a decision to drop support.

(That being said, I certainly am not interested in providing support, so if nobody else is either...)

Loading

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake commented May 9, 2019

utACK fa193dc

I agree with @MarcoFalke & @sdaftuar about Travis. I don't think we should have a job dedicated to a binary we aren't shipping.

Loading

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj commented May 9, 2019

utACK fa193dc

Loading

@laanwj laanwj merged commit fa193dc into bitcoin:master May 9, 2019
2 checks passed
Loading
laanwj added a commit that referenced this issue May 9, 2019
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke deleted the 1904-GitianWin branch May 9, 2019
sidhujag added a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this issue May 10, 2019
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
random-zebra added a commit to PIVX-Project/PIVX that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2020
449872b [Build] Remove Windows 32 bit build, coming from btc@faf666f8148eeb305a9c4f78459aff2c7268016b (furszy)

Pull request description:

  Coming from [btc@15939](bitcoin#15939).

  Based on #1315.

ACKs for top commit:
  Fuzzbawls:
    ACK 449872b
  random-zebra:
    ACK 449872b and merging...

Tree-SHA512: 39c8785ade1202c09c76d964fdc3c739f9e162fec5c9b2991ee9a0a60c4935485c3822be82fd2e279fe536e049b3b1e4a9d5137145505adc09feea850420d8f0
deadalnix pushed a commit to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc that referenced this issue Apr 1, 2020
Summary:
The win32 target will no longer be part of our release nor officially
supported.

It is still possible for users to run the build by themselves, but the
instructions are removed from the doc in order to reflect the
"unsupported" status of this target.

Backport of core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#15939 | PR15939]].

Depends on D5610.

Test Plan:
Run the Windows Gitian build. Check the win32 binaries are no longer
part of the output.

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox

Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox

Subscribers: jasonbcox

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D5612
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2020
wqking added a commit to wqking/Vitae that referenced this issue Jul 30, 2020
449872b167e86060578d196d6e4d6ecb52a69f64 [Build] Remove Windows 32 bit build, coming from btc@faf666f8148eeb305a9c4f78459aff2c7268016b (furszy)

Pull request description:

  Coming from [btc@15939](bitcoin/bitcoin#15939).

  Based on #1315.

ACKs for top commit:
  Fuzzbawls:
    ACK 449872b167e86060578d196d6e4d6ecb52a69f64
  random-zebra:
    ACK 449872b167e86060578d196d6e4d6ecb52a69f64 and merging...

Tree-SHA512: 39c8785ade1202c09c76d964fdc3c739f9e162fec5c9b2991ee9a0a60c4935485c3822be82fd2e279fe536e049b3b1e4a9d5137145505adc09feea850420d8f0

# Conflicts:
#	contrib/devtools/test-security-check.py
#	doc/release-process.md
ftrader added a commit to bitcoin-cash-node/bitcoin-cash-node that referenced this issue Aug 17, 2020
Summary:
The win32 target will no longer be part of our release nor officially
supported.

It is still possible for users to run the build by themselves, but the
instructions are removed from the doc in order to reflect the
"unsupported" status of this target.

Backport of core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#15939 | PR15939]].

Depends on D5610.

Test Plan:
Run the Windows Gitian build. Check the win32 binaries are no longer
part of the output.

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox

Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, jasonbcox

Subscribers: jasonbcox

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D5612

Conflicts:
	doc/build-windows.md
	doc/release-notes.md
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2020
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this issue Nov 25, 2020
UdjinM6 added a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this issue Sep 1, 2021
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
UdjinM6 added a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this issue Sep 2, 2021
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
UdjinM6 added a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this issue Sep 2, 2021
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
UdjinM6 added a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this issue Sep 2, 2021
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
UdjinM6 added a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this issue Sep 2, 2021
fa193dc doc: Remove win32 from the release process (MarcoFalke)
faf666f Remove Windows 32 bit build (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  The Windows 32 bit build has been removed from https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/, so unless there are complaints, we don't need to build it even

ACKs for commit fa193d:
  fanquake:
    utACK bitcoin@fa193dc

Tree-SHA512: d6f2976a2e0c407698f720b00ac23ec4056626de4eff8621f4c5581120af0460afd1bdef72329cc0e7d92afca48d94ae5fce6777cb36bfabb60b8034ff08fd88
fanquake added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 11, 2021
57b3c5b build_msvc: Drop 32-bit build configurations (Hennadii Stepanov)
b3decea build_msvc: Make bitcoin-util ProjectGuid unique (Hennadii Stepanov)

Pull request description:

  A 32-bit application for Windows in 2021 looks outdated. I'm pretty sure no one is going to run Bitcoin Core v23.0 on 32-bit Windows.

  Also see #15939.

ACKs for top commit:
  sipsorcery:
    tACK 57b3c5b.

Tree-SHA512: d03dccb7bab9f6694d008c4b1fdade1dbd7e5980b5199cc6648c1a8c0c66f07170ae9cb6a77b4ab54c9195003587051b94217b014f97c215dffeec2bcd8fcd6e
luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this issue Oct 6, 2021
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this issue Oct 17, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants