Re: biarch gcc not built with 64-bit mode?
>>>>> "Yarik" == Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> writes:
Yarik> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:13:59PM +0100, Roland Fehrenbacher wrote:
>> I think we absolutely need some kind of frozen code base to do the
>> porting against. A small point I would change though: For each new
>> (amd64 or biarch package) I would use the most recent source from
>> unstable, so we don't fall too behind compared to the ix86 unstable.
Yarik> The problem might come when some package has a strict dependency on
Yarik> the other package, meaning requires some =version, which might have
Yarik> not ported yet but have just previous version. Under current level
Yarik> of activity it would be really hard I think to keep up with unstable
Yarik> (or even testing) main debian trunk. So I thought that it would be
Yarik> better to port all basic packages from the frozen base first and
Yarik> then start maintaining it as well as the rest of packages.
This is actually not as hard as you think, since we wouldn't be too far away
from the main branch. Critical things like perl or other very fundamental
packages should have the same or very similar versions. In any case, one could
always check whether the most recent version from unstable causes problems, and
if yes fall back to the version in the frozen tree.
Actually I am building all my packages against a homemade "woody + some
backported from unstable packages" i386 distro (currently 400+ packages
backported). We do this to have an uptodate Debian (for our purpose) without
the moving target effect of running unstable.
Yarik> Well. because interest exists, I will create recent unstable debian
Yarik> mirror in a couple of days (just need to resolve some problems first
Yarik> with machine I want to host it on)
Ok.
Yarik> point. Doing this way we have a chance to be consistent.
>> I am just in the process of creating a new 3.3.2 gcc package
>> suite. There are a couple of things still to be fixed compared to the
>> current pre4 package from Arnd. g77 -m64 for instance doesn't work
>> because of missing libraries. This shouldn't be too difficult to fix
>> though.
Yarik> Please keep up posted how it will come out :-)
I will.
Yarik> 3. After all basic packages are ported with all proper dependancies
Yarik> and all necessary packages and Release and Packages files present we
Yarik> can start maintaining them to catch up with the main debian trunk.
>> If we do what I suggested above, the catch up with the main debian trunk
>> will be much less work.
Yarik> Again - do we have enough strength to catch up? It is just my
Yarik> opinion and might be wrong.
Yarik> Does it sound reasonable???
>> Totally, to me at least.
Yarik> Yeay! :-)
Yarik> .-.
Yarik> =------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Yarik> Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko /(
Yarik> )\ ICQ#: 60653192 Linux User ^^-^^ [175555] Key
Yarik> http://www.onerussian.com/gpg-yoh.asc GPG fingerprint 3BB6 E124 0643
Yarik> A615 6F00 6854 8D11 4563 75C0 24C8
Yarik> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-request@lists.debian.org
Yarik> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Yarik> listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: