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