Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
Andreas Barth writes:
> severity 482921 important
> * Matthias Klose (firstname.lastname@example.org) [080526 00:06]:
> > Aurelien Jarno writes:
> > > Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > > > Package: glibc
> > > > Version: 2.7-11
> > > > Severity: important
> > > >
> > > > Please build libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages; there is no
> > > > package build-depending on libc6-hppa64-dev, but we need these
> > > > packages to run the testsuites for binutils and gcc-4.X. Currently
> > > > these packages are completely untested, although used to build the
> > > > 64bit flavour of the kernel on hppa.
> > > There is no upstream support for 64-bit glibc on hppa, so this bug is
> > > currently a wontfix. Please provide us a patch.
> > that's fine. in this case we should drop support for hppa for lenny.
> I fail to see currently why no support for 64-bit glibc (while we have a
> 32 bit port) is a reason to drop the port.
> Hppa-porters, do you have any opinion on that?
sorry, I did intend to write "lenny+1" instead of "lenny". I'm fine
with packaging the tools for hppa, but seeing either no test results
or timeouts (and build failures) doesn't sound too encouraging. People
did file removal requests for all tcl8.3 depending packages (I still
assume that this will be severity serious for lenny+1), the tcl8.4
based expect times out running the dejagnu testsuites. For at least
having the automatic test results this needs to be fixed (long known
issue, but we didn't care about it in the past because we did have
gcj/java support is another issue; at least the porters that I did ask
didn't have much interest in gcj/java, but having a port without a
basic gcj/java sdk hurts with somewhat (although this is shared with
arm and alpha). Bugs are filed upstream, are known to the porters. Is
there somebody interested working on those, or does somebody know of
porting work for OpenJDK?