Re: Status of Sarge Release Issues (Updated for May)
Drew Scott Daniels writes:
> 1 i386 support? (The large thread starting with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01895.html
> talks about this). Do we have to wait for upstream to fix this? If so that
> might mean a gcc3.4 transition and well, at least half a year before
> freeze (gcc 3.3 is currently in stage three, gcc3.4 will take at least 6
> months to complete the release schedule that
> http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html describes).
This won't change with 3.3, and I'll keep the i486 instructions for
two reasones:
- be compatible with gcc-3.2's libstdc++5
- be compatible with other distributions, such as binaries compiled on
Debian will work on other distributions.
There are other solutions around this (mostly in the
"Dropping/Splitting" thread). In the long term, we will need two ix86
architectures (one i386 and one above i386) or drop i386. It seems
nobody willing to make the split/drop at this point of time, so maybe
another approach may work, which does i386, but not ix86 (x >= 4):
Wladimir Mutel writes:
> There is an emulation patch by Willy Tarreau that gives i486+
> instructions on plain i386 (BSWAP, CMPXCHG, XADD, CMOV).
> It was initially announced about a year ago (
> http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20020708_174.html#5 ,
> http://lwn.net/Articles/3874/ ). It is available now from
> http://miaif.lip6.fr/~tarreau/linux-patches/486emulation/ (Tarreau's hme
> page).
We would need a patched kernel for i386. AFAIU the emulation only
takes places, when you run the kernel on an i386. ix86 (x >= 4) seems
to be unaffected by this patch.
> 1 gcc 3.2 (g++ abi change?) transition status (versions with c102 suffix):
> http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html a search reveils:
> http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=c102&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=packages.debian.org&safe=images
> but this search is inaccurate. It only tells about the last crawled i386
> package pages and includes packages that depend/recomend/suggest these
> i386 c102 packages.
Transition to gcc-3.3 should be added here (note that g++-3.2 and
g++-3.3 have the same ABI). Once 3.3 is released and migrated to
testing, I'll make 3.3 the default.
> 3 AMD x86-64 port? Several threads have been on debian-devel about this.
> i386 packages will aparently work for this arch. (Note: According to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01975.html
> AMD prefers the port to be called AMD64 and not x86-64 or alike)
gcc-3.3 is a prerequisite.
> 1 XFree86 status (sarge'll have 4.3.0, 4.2.1 has been abandonded due to
> gcc 3.2 compilation issues): http://people.debian.org/~branden/xsf/
It would be nice to get in touch with gcc-3.3 now for this package.
> 2 Perl transition (5.6-5.8)? The debian-perl list might have an up to date
> status, is there a status site?
> 2 KDE (3.1?)? Is there a status site? 3.1.1 is in unstable.
> 2 Postgresql (uprade bug marked help, devel site(S)?)?
> 2 Python transition? It looks to be near completion judging from the
> responses to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2003/debian-python-200304/msg00010.html
> 3 libpng transition: debian-devel has some discussion about this archived
> 3 Gnome: http://people.debian.org/~walters/gnome2.html (is the imlib png
> library compatiblility issue involve here?)
All these should be priority 1. These packages migrated the last time
to testing in September/October. A release without this transition
keeps too many fixes out. Unfortunately all this has to be done once
due to dependencies ...
Python doesn't look well at the moment. wxwindows2.4 fails to build on
hppa and powerpc due to linker bugs. Needing binutils for the
transition as well (needed for mips as well). gcc-3.3 is needed as
well, but currently isn't built on s390 (64bit) and mips/mipsel (don't
know why).
And sparc64/s390x need glibc-2.3.2 ...
> 3 Java (some packages were in contrib/non-free because they wouldn't work
> with free Java implementations (ie kaffe). There
>
> was some talk about a potential Java transition but from what to what?)?
> kaffe is free, (Sun's jre isn't?), gjc and gij need some work acording to
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01210.html
> An old, but still relevant java faq is at http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq
gcj-3.3 and gij-3.3 should be somewhat better (jython works
again). For packages known to work with gcj, please see
http://sources.redhat.com/rhug/.
Matthias
Reply to: