Re: architecture-specific release criteria - requalification needed
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 09:11:55AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > We are keeping patches for the armeb port separate, and are ready to
> > contribute them now, or at any future time that is more appropriate.
> > Another chicken-and-egg - are package maintainers expected to accept
> > patches for architectures that are not yet official?
> What kind of patches are these?
> - general porting issues uncovered by armeb (and not uncovered on other
> bigendian arches for some reason): I guess these should be immediately
> - things like configure scripts etc.: these are normally quite small and
> isolated, so I don't see a reason to not submit these.
So far we have (for sarge):
- patches for apt, build-essential, cdrdao, dpkg, gcc, glibc, kaffe,
libsdl, linux-kernel-headers, ltrace, makedev, mozilla, strace and
util-linux to teach their config scripts/files et al. about the
- patches for gal, libgc, quagga to hack around build/runtime failures;
- patches for "all ARMs are little-endian" assumptions: apt, glibc, gmp,
modutils, ocaml (hackish), openssl, xfree86;
- patches for gcc to make arm*b-*-* default to big-endian;
- a patch for gcc 3.3 to work around PR22528 which (only) happens on
We're slowly starting to compile stuff for unstable, beginning with
binutils/gcc/glibc, and we'll port these patches to unstable as we go
The patches we have so far can be found at: