Switch ARM/linux builders from armel to armhf.

Switch ARM/linux builders from armel to armhf.

This change requires a corresponding change to chrome
and therefore will break to ARM builders (fyi, and optional
try only) until this lands:
https://codereview.chromium.org/27197011/

BUG=308256
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=231628

[Sam Clegg, 2013-10-28 17:17:09]

It might be possible to make the chrome build smart
enough to adapt itself to armel or armhf based on the
value of CC, but I can't see anyone ever want to build
armel going forward and doing think we want to be supporting
it if debian/ubuntu aren't.

[ghost stip (do not use), 2013-10-28 18:25:58]

lgtm. let's stage this on chromium.fyi first, if that works then we know we can
make the TS changes as well

[Sam Clegg, 2013-10-28 18:37:45]

On 2013/10/28 18:25:58, stip wrote:
> lgtm. let's stage this on chromium.fyi first, if that works then we know we
can
> make the TS changes as well

The problem is that the way I've done this in chrome is that it only
supports one or the other and not both.  I could do a little more
work on the chrome-side CL to support both and then we can do 
a smoother transition, but since we don't have anyone relying on
the ARM builder at this point I didn't bother.   What do you think?  Should
I do the work to allow chrome to be built with either armel or armhf?

[Sam Clegg, 2013-10-28 18:39:10]

On 2013/10/28 18:37:45, Sam Clegg wrote:
> On 2013/10/28 18:25:58, stip wrote:
> > lgtm. let's stage this on chromium.fyi first, if that works then we know we
> can
> > make the TS changes as well
> 
> The problem is that the way I've done this in chrome is that it only
> supports one or the other and not both.  I could do a little more
> work on the chrome-side CL to support both and then we can do 
> a smoother transition, but since we don't have anyone relying on
> the ARM builder at this point I didn't bother.   What do you think?  Should
> I do the work to allow chrome to be built with either armel or armhf?

In other words my plan was as follows:

1) land this change
2) restart the masters
3) the ARM builders will all break because chrome doesn't support armhf out of
the box right now
4) land the chrome change to support armhf.

A little more work I can avoid (3) where the bots fail, if you like.

[Sam Clegg, 2013-10-28 22:20:30]

OK.  I didn't extra work to make the chrome change work both before and after
this change.

When you say you think we should stage on the fyi tree first
to you mean I should split this into 2 different CLs?

[ghost stip (do not use), 2013-10-29 18:24:18]

keep the CL as it is, but land the change during the day and only restart
chromium.fyi. if that works (although the builder will break), land the
chromium-side CL. then we can restart the TS later in the night, knowing that
things should work OK

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-29 20:30:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sbc@chromium.org/49233002/70001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-29 20:31:04]

Change committed as 231628