Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > If
> > you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> > should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> > team first.
> That's not at all what I think.
>
> I think that if there are known binutils bugs for your architecture, which
> supposedly prevent the build of multiple packages --
> /either/ forwarding them upstream
> /or/ fixing them if they're Debian-specific
> /or/ closing them if they're bogus
> within a reasonable amount of time (less than a year)
> should be a requirement for a port to be considered.
>
> Does the release team agree or disagree?
>
> According to Thiemo Seufer, MIPS has failed this criterion.
You are mistaken (since I'm also upstream). I notice you seem to
triage pre-sarge bug reports, maybe you want to ask the participants
of the bugs discussion first before jumping to conclusions.
> He said that GCJ is not present and does not build due to an ld bug which also
> affected ghc (http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2005/10/msg00051.html).
> However, contrary to his claim, there are no bug reports filed regarding this
> for ghc. The only such bug I could find was
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=274738. This bug is *not*
> reported upstream. It has had no activity since November 2004. According to
> David Daney (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/10/msg00016.html) and
> indeed Matthias Klose
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/10/msg00020.html) it is
> unreproducible.
I asked David at that time for which configuration he got actually
working large executables/libraries which don't segfault on startup.
I got no response.
Thiemo
Reply to: