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

Re: GSoC proposal

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:50:24AM +0800, Anthony Fok wrote:
> Hello!
> 2009/4/16 sha liu <sandyleo26@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> ps: you can call me Fred or Mr. Muller, but not Muller.
> >> In English family names are last (as opposed to Chinese
> >> where you put them first...)
> >
> > Sure, Fred. You can call me Liu or Sha or Sha Liu or Liu Sha
> > or even 刘沙(I know you know some Chinese), whichever
> > you like since all these sound great to me.
> > I hate this but I think I have to mention the question again:
> > Since there're already two ports related to mips arch (mips and mipsel)
> > in Debian now, is it possible for this project to to be integrated into
> > Debian repository? as the third port?
> I must say this mailing list is unusually quiet.  Hmm...
> Thanks to Fred for his warm response!  I wonder if
> we should try asking this question on debian-devel@l.d.o.
> Anyhow, to answer your question, I think there is genuine
> interest within the Debian community to eventually produce
> a MIPS N32 port or even MIPS N64 port.  The discussion
> in this bug report may give you some more hints:
>      http://bugs.debian.org/434855
> Note especially the insights from the late Thiemo Seufer,
> who was a Debian Developer for the MIPS port and who
> unfortunately died in a tragic accident on December 26
> last year.  Do try to read the whole thread and understand
> it; though one of the key part is this:
> >> Just to make sure:  There are only two Debian MIPS architectures: mips
> >> and mipsel.   Does that mean, that
> >>
> >>   Debian arch  | ABI (from your list above)
> >>   -------------+---------------------------
> >>   mips         | mips, mipsn32, mips64
> >>   mipsel       | mipsel, mipsn32el, mips64el
> >
> > No, sorry again for leaving ot crucial information. Debian currently
> > supports only O32 ABI. Support for the other ABIs is planned in future
> > but so far hasn't progressed much beyond 64bit Kernels. The ABI names
> > quoted above are actually the propsed Debian architecture names, since
> > "Debian architecture" effectiely means "support for one specific ABI".
> That said, there are several ways to go about it:
>  1. Straight port like what we are proposing for GSoC
>  2. A "multilib" strategy currently available in Debian 5.0
>  3. Multi-arch.
> You might be interested to read about a PDF report entitled
> _Multi-Arch_Implementation_Strategy_  prepared for HP
> by Canonical to study more on the pros and cons of each:
>       http://lwn.net/Articles/184092/
> Anyhow, I think the main question now to the Debian MIPS
> developers community is this: Can we go ahead and use the
> Theimo's proposed name of "mipsn32el" for this port?  If the
> answer is "Yes", then yes, let's get started!  :-)
> Don't worry too much about whether it will be integrated
> into the official Debian repository at this point.  If it is good,
> and the community really wants it, it will happen.  For the
> time being, it will be maintained out-of-tree.  Take a
> look at the history of the Debian "armel" port.  IIRC, It took
> almost two years before it became an official Debian port.
> :-)  But that is OK, as it allows time and flexibility to
> experiment and sort out problems before the official
> release, and an out-of-tree port is equally helpful to the
> community.
> The following links might be helpful:
>     http://wookware.org/talks/armeabidebconf.pdf
>     http://wiki.debian.org/ArmEabiPort

Also, there is a discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org about
multiarch preparation[1].  Mips(el) might be part of it.

[1] http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.debian.devel.general&article=137829

> Any comments from the Debian MIPS developers
> community?  :-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: