Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster
Hi Matthias!
On 07/16/2018 05:59 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I understand that port maintainers want to have their port included as a release
> architecture, however it becomes a burden if neither the upstream nor the Debian
> port maintainers can keep up with the general upstream development. Maybe we
> need something in between the alternatives of being a release arch or not,
> having the benefit of packages in testing/stable, but not being supported in a
> release.
Care to elaborate what you are referring to? At least for powerpc, ppc64 and
sparc64, gcc seems well enough maintained that bugs get fixed in a reasonable
amount of time.
The powerpcspe is currently being reworked, the SH backend is still maintained
by at least one upstream developer. The only backend I am worried about is
the m68k backend since it still needs to be ported to CC1.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: