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

Bug#967901: lower memory usage for riscv build



Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2020-08-04 18:17:07)
> Control: tags -1 wontfix
> 
> Quoting Sebastien Bacher (2020-08-04 17:29:21)
> > Could you add riscv64 to the list of architecture where build needs 
> > a reduced memory usage? The change has been added to Ubuntu and is 
> > the only delta between the distribution
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> We do not need that in Debian, and I will not carry patches in Debian 
> unique to downstream derivatives: When a derivative distribution 
> choose to be different from Debian then it is on them to carry the 
> burden of maintaining such delta.

Let me elaborate a bit, as I imagine that above can easily come across 
as "shut up and go away" which really isn't what I intended...:

Closing this bugreport does not imply that conversation is closed, only 
that with the currently presented material there is no further action.  
We can continue the conversation in a "closed" bugreport.  You are still 
most welcome to provide more information - e.g. more details on why (if 
so) you think that it is relevant that Debian (not only Ubuntu) uses the 
build flags that you requested.

In addition to the (little) information presented here, I based my 
judgement on some casual conversation on irc.  I explicitly asked there 
to please share information in a bugreport but nothing came of that.

Hope that helps.  A bit.  But yes, if ehat you need is to limit the 
delta of Ubuntu packaging and that alone, then I really am not helping 
here.

In any case, thanks for filing the bugreport and proposing the patch - 
please continue to do so, even if this one was turned down: I am not 
fundamentally against Ubuntu, and I am certainly not the only one in 
Debian, so there is still hope :-)


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: