Re: debian/m68k's future
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Michael Schmitz
<schmitz@biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>> > Option 2: lenny-lite
>> > Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required
>> > packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's
>> > interest. I'll probably include anything required for d-i
>> > too.
>> >
>>
>> Probably the sanest option, most of the base packages should simply
>> build and allow a successful debootstrapping.
>
> Best option to get off etch in the short term, yes.
>
We could start here, then work towards a general lenny-m68k release.
>> > Option 3: lenny
>> > Go ahead and try to do a lenny release. I think we have
>> > nearly all the binary packages, but how to shove them into
>> > an archive intelligently? I'm willing to help if anyone
>> > knows how and can direct or is otherwise willing to lead.
>
> If someone can give specific guidance, I'd be willing to help as well, but I
> will not have the resources to figure it all out from the source.
>
>> >
>>
>> Binary packages: Yes
>> Matching versions: Not really
>
> So that would make it lenny-m68k, then.
>
>> I'd love to see a m68k lenny release however ...
>
> Seconded.
>
>> > Option 4: throw in the towel
>> > Say it's time to retire m68k on debian. We have an ancient
>> > glibc with borked threads. gcc-4.3 is fairly broken. A
>> > number of packages need some bugs fixed, others need some
>> > porting. Not so many helpers these days. Funny thing is with
>> > aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to fix
>> > the fpu emulation) and with d-ports our buildds won't get
>> > locked out of wanna-build. Kernel's probably in the best
>> > shape it's been in a long time.
>
> Well, the kernel could use some attention as far as drivers are concerned (SCSI
> comes to mind). I'll deal with Atari issues anyway, and I'd give the Debian
> kernel source patches a shot now that Geert has given us the proper base for
> that.
>
> On the porting, toolchain and buildd front I've been largely silent in the last
> months - unfortunately, that won't change in the forseeable future.
>
The toolchain is actually not that bad of shape, TLS aside. Most of
the issues should clear up once we have a more modern glibc :-/
> Helpers in those areas don't need to be Debian developers after our move to
> ports?
>
You still need to be a DD to upload to the ports archive unless we
want to forgo the possibility of recycling binaries if/should we
return to the main archive.
> Michael
>
Reply to: