On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:43:54AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net> writes: > > > I'm not saying quantity isn't a problem or that politics isn't annoying, > > but the m68k port's biggest problem since gcc-4.0 rolled out has been > > the toolchain. > > I don't think this is the only thing, however. > > Notice that guile-1.6 has not built on m68k since 1.6.7-1.1. None of > the m68k porters have filed a bug, nor has the buildd team. True, but I've filed a number of such bugs only to find they were gcc toolchain problems. Many others were ignored out right, since we're not RC. I hadn't intended to file that bug until I had ruled out the compiler and maybe could file an intelligent bug report. > Moreover, it would be *entirely* reasonable for guile upstream to say > "I'm sorry, we don't support m68k and don't intend to." As clisp has already done. > There are a number of such language processors, not just the > GCC-related toolchain. Absolutely. The gcj toolchain seems to be almost as important as the gcc toolchain. We have another 24 packages currently waiting on gch6 to build (once the toolchain bug was fixed we started running into timeouts) and 12 on emacs21. > The m68k team will need to be the do-it-all porters of *all* such > toolchainy software, not just GCC. You'll need to work on guile and > scm, and plenty of other stuff. > > Are you ready? I'm really not sure how that's different from today. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature