Re: How should stalin be handled on slower architectures?
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> The bug report isn't about whether the package *should* be built for
> m68k and arm, it's about whether it *can* be built for m68k and arm.
True, though since it has built in the past, and in the past the only
thing that had stopped it was a lack of build time, I presumed that
might be likely here as well. Though as Ingo's build determined,
there's someting else wrong with at least the m68k build.
>> for m68k or arm (though we have packages of the previous version for
>> both of those architectures).
>
> The packages for m68k were removed from unstable a while ago.
Ahh, right. I just meant that previous versions have built
successfully even though they were huge and took a while.
> without finishing it. There may be a difference in the relative power
> of smackdown and netwinder that explains this, or there may be toolchain
> differences that account for it. OTOH, this could also be a sign of a
> regression in the stalin sources between 0.9 and 0.9+0.10alpha2.
Previously, newer versions of gcc have made the compile take much
longer, even with the same stalin source, so I thought perhaps that
might be happening this time as well.
> If the current toolchain is less forgiving than the version last
> used to build the package on arm, and it's no longer possible to
> build the package using the available build environments, we have an
> RC bug because we shouldn't ship binaries that we know we can't
> provide critical updates for.
Certainly. I'll look in to the build problem with the current source,
but I can also see if the previous version will still build.
> If you and the arm buildd maintainers can't come to an agreement that
> lets stalin build again on this architecture, the out-of-date binaries
> will need to be removed from the archive by an ftp-master.
I haven't heard back from anyone associated with the arm buildds
AFAIK. Are the correct contact addresses listed somewhere? I tried
James and rmurray.
> FWIW, since the problematic source file is in fact generated by stalin,
> and is exemplary of the kind of C code stalin generates in the course of
> normal use,
I doubt that most code that people might want to compile with stalin
will be that big. The original source for stalin is a 1.1MB Scheme
file (stalin.sc). That's a quite a lot of Scheme code.
> I'd question how useful this package is on architectures that have a
> hard time building it.
That's basically the question I was asking. How do we decide when a
package isn't appropriate for a given architecture, if in fact, we
think it's appropriate to decide that for the users at all.
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
Reply to: