Re: Bug#864144: e2fsprogs strangeness about mips* multilibs
Hi Ted,
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:46:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I'm going to confess complete ignorance to what's going on with mips.
> In the past my modus operandi is that I would make changes in response
> to requests to the MIPS porters, in some cases with incomplete
> understand why they were needed in the first place.
>
> My bias would be to remove *all* of the mips specific exceptions in
> the debian directory, and then see if things still build on mips, and
> if there are any known problems caused by the mips installer or mips
> bootpath. And if we do need to add back any exceptions for the MIPS
> architecture, let's make sure it's very clearly documented why they
> are there. Because at the moment, I'm a bit embarassed at my
> inability to answer your perfectly reasonable questions. :-)
I think the approach is reasonable. I did put
debian-mips@lists.debian.org into X-Debbugs-Cc for this reason and am
full quoting your reply to that list now to have them object.
> Does that seem reasonable? Are you willing to work with me to figure
> out whether such a plan is going to cause problems with the installer
> team, et. al? And I assume that because we're just about to release
> Debian stable, this is really a post stretch activity, yes? Or is the
> current state sufficient undesirable that it rises to the level of
> release critical? (I don't think so, but I'm willing to be
> pursuaded.)
I actually thought that severity wishlist would have made it perfectly
clear that this is intended post-stretch, but I can spell it out
explicitly: No, I didn't expect this to be fixed in stretch.
The context of my work is making Debian cross buildable and
bootstrappable. Preferably, reproducibly. At least for the first part we
know roughly 1300 packages are cross buildable. So this bug really is a
drop in the bucket.
So let's give d-mips@l.d.o time to object until stretch is released.
Helmut
Reply to: