[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: arm release issues

Steve Langasek wrote:
> Here is the list of arm-only problems I know about that currently keep arm
> from catching up / making headway against the list of unbuilt packages:
> - sablevm-classlib: buildd timeout, needs timing info before give-back

Seems to hang when I try to build it on arm. Need to figure out how/why and
file a bug I'm afraid. It would be helpful if someone else could try to build
it too.

> - gcj-4.1: 387875

doko tells me he has a workaround planned for this bug.

> - gnuradio-core: needs timing info

40 hours for 1 gcc run on a 64 mb arm machine. The problimatic gcc runs
were swapping, so it should take a _lot_ less time on a machine with > 64
mb ram. If we can't get such a buildd, I'd suggest setting the timeout to 48
hours for this package. :-/

> - firefox: needs timing info

Building now, I suppose this will take a while..

> Porters, please work on these issues (and the others listed at
> http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=arm!).

Yes, please. I have limited time I can work on this, some other arm
people, please help..

> As things stand now, it does not seem likely that arm can be released with
> etch on the same terms as the other archs, with large swaths of desktop
> and/or java packages unavailable for arm.  If it's the consensus of the ARM
> team that these packages aren't a useful target for the architecture, then
> perhaps it would be better for the arm and m68k porters to work together to
> identify a subset of the archive that's appropriate for embedded systems,
> instead of struggling with and failing to meet the current standards?  Hmm,
> then again, one of the 28 arm uninstallables in testing right now is
> "contacts", which seems explicitly targetted for arm systems, but is deep in
> the java chain listed above... :/

Also, it's actually feasable to want to run mozilla on certian arm systems,
unlike m68k. Or to want to develop java apps for arm with gcj.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: