Re: Plan needed for switching m68k to 32-bit alignment
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-10-28 at 15:51 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > You talk about "applications ... being written". Well, two days ago I
> > mentioned several groups of applications: (1) core packages that
> > accept alignment patches, (2) packages whose developers shouldn't
> > worry about small systems anyway, and (3) packags I am concerned about
> > i.e. the ones actually required by Debian/m68k users (which will
> > presumably lead to disto bug reports, if they didn't already -- hence
> > my question about bug reports which remains unanswered).
>
> As I said before, it's about (transitive) build dependencies and the
> fact that more and more packages are being rewritten in Rust.
>
> Here is the current top of the list of packages that won't build on m68k
> because of the 2-byte alignment issue:
>
> 2814 cargo:m68k
> 900 ghc:m68k
> 261 gccgo-14:m68k
> 241 libqt5core5a:m68k
> 181 architecture-is-64-bit:m68k
> 117 libglib2.0-0:m68k
> 81 libcompiler-libs-ocaml-dev-0a396:m68k
> 81 golang-go:m68k
> 71 wx3.2-headers:m68k
> 57 qt6-base-dev:m68k
> 57 python3:m68k
> 46 libamd2:m68k
>
> Are you going to fix these for me?
>
Are you the only user?
Seriously though, thanks for providing data. Now, if you would link to the
upstream refusals for CPython and golang, I'll do what I can to help.
Reply to: