Re: HPPA and Squeeze
Luk Claes schrieb:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Grant Grundler schrieb:
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>> Grant Grundler wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
>>>> Note that it's wrong to assume we will come with the answers.
>>> I was expecting a summary of specific issues from an organization
>>> that claims to operate transperently. The hand waving is easy. But
>>> doesn't resolve problems and doesn't meet my expectation of an "open"
>>> organization that I've donated money, time, and materials to.
>> +1. dropping hppa as a release architecture was not communicated by the release
>> team at all. I did spend some time to get gcj / default-jdk working on hppa,
>> and some money (buying a new disk for a hppa machine) to help this port. The
>> time and the money could have spent better, if d-r would have better
>> communicated about their intent.
> There are issues with the hppa port where the release team considered
> dropping it since 2005 communicated to the porter list...
>> hppa is not in a good shape, but there are other architectures which are not
>> better (sparc, mips*) from a toolchain point of view. what about these?
> I'm not aware of current toolchain issues on sparc and the issues on
> mips* still seem to be manageable, no?
sparc-biarch defaulting to 32bit isn't supported by upstream; there are requests
to move to v9 optimization by default, which requires some work in the compiler.
I don't plan to update this for upcoming GCC versions, and there's no interest
by upstream to help with this kind of setup. You can't buy v8 software for years
now, but afaik all our machines run 64bit kernels. Maybe it's time to
acknowledge this, remove sparc from the list of release architectures and go on
there are currently binutils issues outstanding, reported upstream. plus the
non-availability of developer machines seems to be an issue. Sadly we don't have
the mips support for squeeze as we had for lenny.
>> there are issues pointed out and not addressed like the -dev / -headers packages
>> built as binary independent packages just to save disk space, which have an
>> impact on "slow" architectures, and which are not addressed by the release team.
>> would the release team mind addressing these real issues, or should we drop
>> "slow" architectures as well?
> Well, this Packages issue is clearly a responsability from the FTP Team
> and the Release Team would indeed be very happy to have that resolved.
So it seems to be ok to ignore an issue, if you can work around it? Fine, then
I'll build all compiler front ends from one source again.