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

Re: getting gcc for hppa into the archive

Matthias Klose writes...

> for my understanding: these are backports of the hppa 3.1 checkins to
> 3.0, or complete diffs from 3.0 to 3.1 including the hppa patches?

The hppa CVS tree is still based on the 3.0 branch. When the changes were 
submitted upstream it was to late for them go into 3.0 so they went into 3.1. 
So we can produce diffs to 3.0 easily. My understanding is that it's many 
files including some arch-independent changes. Does this answer your question?

>  > 1.) Produce hppa specific gcc debs using either the port's CVS or the
>  > upstream 3.1 branch. I could do the packages and they would have no
>  > affect on the compilers for other archs. This would be redundant
>  > packaging/tracking work that would be needed until the regular debian
>  > package contained all the hppa diffs.
> assuming these packages will be uploaded to unstable, we'll have the
> binary independent packages for the other archs as well.

So we would just modify those to be hppa specific as well?

>  > 2.) Do a general gcc-3.1 based on the upstream 3.1 branch. Teach
>  > gcc-defaults to use 3.1 for hppa.
> minor

You're saying the gcc-defaults work is minor or the gcc-3.1 package?

>  > This gcc-3.1 package could either be "Architecture: any" 
>  > or just for hppa and other ports that needed it. IMHO This is a more 
>  > appropriate solution and might be useful for other archs. Exposure would be
>  > limited to the archs using 3.1. This might be more work for the debian-gcc
>  > team.
> that would be in the "tradition" of the experimental packages. but if
> this package is regularly updated to the HEAD, it becomes difficult
> to get a stable compiler, especially if more than one architecture is
> using HEAD for it's main compiler.

True. We've been using HEAD because we had to but I suspect we would like to 
stablize on a stable version at some point.

>  > How would you like to see these packages done? Any other ideas?
> I cannot comment which version is more stable to use for
> hppa.

I'm guessing 3.0 will be more stable for hppa.

> Assuming that 3.0 stabilizes in the near future, the size of the
> patch set isn't a reason not to rely on 3.0.

OK, what about arch-independent changes? I don't know how many of these we 
have but my understanding is that any diff applies to all arch builds right? 
Or is it possible to have a patch only apply when building on a specific arch? 
I would love it if all I had to do is generate a patch to 3.0.


Matt Taggart        Linux Development Lab
taggart@fc.hp.com   HP Linux Systems Operation

Reply to: