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

Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips

Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
> > This is no way to get a bug fixed.  If this is seriously the level of 
> > attention to mips and mipsel, Debian support for them should be dropped.
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> >sorry, this attitude has nothing to do with release management, it's
> >just ranting.
> >The problem is addressed, known to the right people.
> Sure doesn't look like it; at the very least, there's a failure of openness in 
> the processes here.  This really is no way to get a bug fixed.  The failure 
> to report the bug upstream was what really got to me.
> >Just ask if you cannot find some information.
> All right.
> * What's wrong with ld on mips/mipsel?
> * What's the last time a gcj build was tested on mips/mipsel, what version of 
> ld was it tested with, and where are the results?

current gcc-4.0 and gcc-snapshot packages, using current binutils packages.

> * Why isn't the problem reported upstream to binutils?  I know it's not, since 
> I checked.

AFAIK it's not just a binutils problem.

> * If it's Debian-specific, has it been tracked to a particular part of 
> Debian's configuration of binutils?  If not, which mips porter is working on 
> that?

it's not Debian specific. 

> And for pkg-java-maintainers:
> * Why was kaffe deliberately broken on mips and mipsel?  
> * If this was being done with the intention of removing kaffe on those 
> architectures, why isn't there a bug against ftp.debian.org requesting the 
> removal of the obsolete binaries?  For mipsel, at least, this is still 
> needed.
> -- 
> Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
> This space intentionally left blank.

Reply to: