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

Re: powerpcspe in Debian

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:17:08PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi,

> I now have current gcc, eglibc, perl and python building and used on
> powerpcspe.
> Some Detail issues:
> At http://antcom.de/powerpcspe/patches/ there are my patches for
> gcc-4.6, gcc-4.7 and gcc-defaults.

Please remove *-multilib support from your patches, it should build without

> gcc-4.7 only builds if I adjust the build environment further, see
> gcc-4.7.sh and http://bugs.debian.org/637232 etc.

gcc-4.7.sh should go. You should build a compiler with multiarch support,
recompile libc and friends in order to place the libraries there. That was
imho the point where I took a break :) So that could end up in work…

> I'd like to hear some comments about those patches before I file them
> agaist gcc-* packages.
> I'm especially wondering about our multiarch approach. Typically,
> multiarch archs have >=2 archs (e.g. powerpc and powerpc64). However,
> powerpcspe doesn't seem to have a sibling arch, therefore being "single"
> multiarch, basically doing most stuff like the powerpc port for
> simplicity. Is there anything that I should keep in mind here or that
> I'm missing here?

Ehm. Multiarch is okay. It will place the libraries under
/lib/powerpc-linux-gnuspe/. That is okay. So you can install them on amd64
while cross compiling or so. We want multiarch :)
Now we don't have and it looks that we won't have a 64bit CPU doing SPE
floating point that means we don't want multilib. Please remove those from
your gcc-patches. I think my old ones did not have those included.

> The growing powerpcspe repo is still available at my server, augmenting
> debian-ports:
> deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ sid main
> deb http://www.antcom.de/powerpcspe/ unstable main
> One question about the boost library: In debian-ports, there is already
> version, but in common unstable there is only Is
> there an important reason for this? Otherwise, I would just stay with
> the version built from unstable.

Could you be more specific here please? I see 1.49.0-3.1 at
which looks fine. The boost-defaults package is I don't see

> Thanks in advance,
> Roland


Reply to: