Re: Debian/MIPSeb: proposal to drop mipseb port?

[YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com>]

Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org> 于2018年7月9日周一 下午6:31写道：
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:12 PM YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Adi Kriegisch <adi@cg.tuwien.ac.at> 于2018年7月9日周一 下午4:34写道：
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > due to lack of enough man power and build machines for 3 mips* port at
> > > > the same time, I think that now it is time for us to have a talk about
> > > > dropping mips32eb support now.
> > > [...]
> > > > In fact I don't know anybody is using Debian's mips32eb port.
> > > > If you are using it, please tell us.
> > > I am using mips32eb a lot on wifi routers (self-compiled kernel with
> > > rootfs on a usb stick). There are some people here at a community
> > > wireless network that do use such setups on their rooftops as well.
> > >
> >
> > What is the advantage of eb than el? better performance?
> > I guess most of CPUs support both eb and el.
> >
> > > Please let me know if there is anything I could do to help avoiding the
> > > drop.
> > >
> >
> > We need some more build machines, current we use some ER8s,
> > which use NFS as rootfs and they have no FPU.
> > So the performance and stability are bad.
>
> Just for reference why is mips (mips32eb) not build from an mips64el
> machine (with FPU) ? All i386 (AFAIK) packages are build from amd64
> these days (same is true for ppc32 on ppc64).

mipsel packages do build on mips64el machines,
while mips aka mips32eb cannot.

>
> > We also need some more manpower to fix the FTBFS in future.
>
> Is this the correct page to look at the FTBFS+mips(32eb):
>
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=mips&user=debian-mips%40lists.debian.org
>

Yes. It is.

>
>
> > > best regards,
> > >         Adi Kriegisch
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > YunQiang Su
> >



-- 
YunQiang Su