Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-06-18 at 13:50 +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > > How is messing with a hobbyist project "harmful" in any way? That makes
> > > no sense.
> > >
> >
> > If your port was a pure hobbyist project, you would never have brought
> > your complaint to the upstream mailing lists, where developers have to
> > work with ALL interested parties and make the necessary compromises.
>
> Can you list ALL interested parties, please?
>
> I only know about Gentoo and Debian and both want to make the switch.
>
That's what code review is for. I'd be happy to show you how your patches
will have an adverse affect on others, once you post them all. (And I mean
ALL patches -- including the ones you expect Debian to carry.)
> > But, as usual, you're trying to have it both ways. You pretend that
> > wiping wiping your slate clean and starting over doesn't impact anyone
> > else. But then you complain when the upstream projects don't care to
> > invest effort into your scheme.
>
> Again, can you list the other downstream projects that would be affected
> and that oppose this change? Please come with actual evidence instead of
> just remaining vague.
>
Again, please post patches instead of "remaining vague". Also, FYI, the
development process doesn't demand lists. Just one regression would be
sufficient.
> > The way to find a compromise is to build the thing you need, and then,
> > if any of it is found to be useful upstream, send patches! That's how
> > this process has always worked, has it not?
>
> I have never denied that. The problem here is that I started a
> discussion to resolve a longstanding problem with the m68k port and you
> immediately started shooting at it instead of trying to work something
> out together.
>
Cool story. But the record shows that you went on the offensive,
threatening to break the ABI, and I merely responded.
> > Moreover, to the extent that those patches get merged, we will have
> > the beginnings of a second ABI with a second tuple. To the extend that
> > those patches get rejected, you will have a fork on your hands.
>
> I won't have a problem with maintaining the fork. As I have repeatedly
> said, the Gentoo people are working on the same change, so it's more
> like the upstream developers that would exclude themselves.
>
And yet, two days prior, you wrote, "I'm not forking any packages". The
emptiness of that commitment is abundantly clear now.
> > So, some upstream developers will have to support both ABIs (for them,
> > you've just created work). Other developers will have to choose
> > between either one (for them, you've just make collaboration more
> > difficult).
>
> You're again being vague. You talk about Linux/m68k as if there were
> dozens of downstream distributions and projects when there is in fact
> just Debian and Gentoo which both, as I have said countless times now,
> want to make the switch.
>
> So, I have no idea what these other mystical downstream projects should
> be.
>
Where did I mention "projects"? You need to read the messages you reply
to.
> > This is a lose/lose proposition. And if you think I'm wrong about
> > that, please just send patches and demonstrate why.
>
> I have received multiple messages now, off- and on-list, from users that
> are supporting my efforts as they see the value in making software more
> useful to users instead of just insisting on adhering to a broken ABI
> that no one really cares about anymore in the year 2025.
>
Again, 1990's silicon doesn't care for your 2025 package archive.
Reply to: