Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >>
> >>The fact you don't have anyone able to make a working cross-compiler
> >>speaks somewhat poorly of the support available for the m68k toolchain,
> >>too.
> >
> >
> >The issues with producing a working cross-compiler that I hit against
> >were not m68k-specific. Also, they may or may not have been fixed in the
> >mean time; I know for a fact that there is no updated toolchain-source
> >package available, but there've been a few upstream updates in the mean
> >time, and I didn't go out and check them anymore (since my previous
> >attempts failed)
>
> Toolchain-source is currently being worked on and should soon be
> ready for testing and policy compiliance.
I know, I've seen your mails to -gcc (and other places). I'll add that
I'm grateful for that; the toolchain-source package really is helpful if
you need a cross-compiler, and I hate it that my cross-compilers have
been pushed off my laptop by a recent gcc update. Thanks for working on
this :-)
Just for clarity however, because there seems to be a significant amount
of confusion around this:
The recent changes to release policy have moved the responsibility of
making sure the toolchain works on every architecture from the toolchain
packages' maintainers to the porters. That's fine; it's only fair that
porters make sure the toolchain works on their port, but on the other
hand it does introduce work for us porters.
Starting to use a cross-compiler would, additionally, require us to make
sure the upstream cross-build system works, and keeps working; if at
some point it does not when there's a major gcc upgrade, we'll be in
deep trouble. This is a serious additional burden, one I don't agree
would be fair to expect of us; if our port would die because someone
upstream thought it would be better to release now with a broken build
system than to wait another five months to fix it, well.
See my problem?
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: