Re: Bug#980794: octave-iso2mesh: Arbitrary limitation of build architectures
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:12:40PM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
>...
> * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> [2021-01-22 12:10]:
>...
> > The last upload octave-iso2mesh arbitrarily limited the list of build
> > architectures on the assumption that only certain architectures have
> > buildds with enough disk spaces which is certainly not true. The
> > available disk space depends on the buildd used, not the architecture.
Physical RAM or disk space are not the problem, the problem is the
virtual address space of processes on 32bit architectures.
On mipsel, where every process has 2 GB of address space, both
"g++ -O0 -g0" and "clang++ -O0 -g0" fail because they run out
of address space.
>...
> I am the responsible person for the build architecture limitation. It was
> an attempt to get octave-iso2mesh into bullseye, at least for a limited set
> of release-official architectures. However, the package did not yet
> migrated into testing, even though a request for the removal of the binary
> packages for armel, armhf, and mipsel have been filed (see Bug#979623).
>...
> I fully agree that this is not an ideal situation. I think that, once
> Bug#979623 is fixed, we should remove the architecture restriction.
>
> What do the others think?
For Debian testing migration purposes it only matters whether stale old
binaries are in the archive, for that it does not make any difference
whether binaries are missing due to architecture restrictions or FTBFS.
> Best,
>
> Rafael Laboissière
cu
Adrian
Reply to: