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

Re: Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:27:01PM +0000, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:34:41 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I disagree with "let's first remove things". If a package like ruby
> > doesn't build on sparc this bug report is RC exactly as long as sparc is
> > a release arch. The release team has (and does) override such bug
> > reports for testing migration if appropriate. Removing the binary
> > package doesn't help at all but just makes things worse. So please don't
> > do it, especially for packages with reverse dependencies.
> The big issue (as I understood from the OP) here is that the toolchain is 
> not keeping up. Why should the maintainers of other software be bothered 
> about that architecture?

I think the major issue for a particular arch depends on that arch.
For sparc, the majority of times I see posts to debian-sparc for porting
issues, the problem is a bus error, which is not a toolchain issue.
It's a buggy C/C++ code issue in the original package.  Alignment issues
are also noted on ia64, but there they're not as obvious since they
cause a SIGSEGV, not a SIGBUS.

In order to assist developers, I tried to write a library to enable
alignment check on i386/amd64 for ease of debugging, but the C library
does not function correctly with that enabled, so I gave up.

brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: