Re: Building the powerpc archive on a machine having ppc64 in its uname output.
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:43:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi Sven, hi all,
>
> First of all, sorry for mixing discussions about buildd relocation and
> usability buildds with the "ppc64" string in their uname for building
> the powerpc port in the future. I have now separated the threads
> accordingly. Good luck to Voltaire in his trip.
>
> Le Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:45:59AM +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:34:31PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > But I have another concern. In my experience, some debian source
> > > packages do not build on G5 running the Debian powerpc port because
> > > their ./configure scripts get confused by the "ppc64" string in the
> > > uname output. Depending on how widespread this problem is, this has two
> > > consequences:
> >
> > My opinion, is that such packages are buggy, and the problem should be
> > fixed, probably at the build infrastructure level, with some smart
> > substitution, if it has not been fixed already. I have not yet seen any
> > such problem, and ubuntu use powerpc64 hardware as their powerpc
> > buildds.
>
> I have just looked at the buildd information of Ubuntu, and it seems
> that they use only G3/G4 machines:
>
> https://launchpad.net/+builds/royal
> https://launchpad.net/+builds/adare
> https://launchpad.net/+builds/ross
>
> Or am I just confused and they meant that they build *for* G3/G4 ?
I may have been wrong then, but still packages not building on powerpc64
are buggy, and need to be fixed.
Let's make powerpc64 multiarch or biarch support a release goal for
lenny, who is interested in helping out for this ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: