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