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

Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc

Hi Matthias,

I am interested in helping out for the powerpcspe port, i own an P1010 based board, and am interested in this topic.

I am not really very experienced in toolchain stuff though, so a little help in getting started would be welcome.

Also, if it comes from that, i also volunteered for helping out on the powerpc port, so i could also give a hand on
the powerpc toolchain. I don't have a powerpc board handy right now though, and since i am no more DD, i don't know upto
what point i can get acces to a developer board (or who to ask).


Sven Luther

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
> toolchain for these architectures.  At least for release architectures the
> alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
> for this port.  This is the current status, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>  - alpha, no feedback, CCing Michael Cree.
>  - hppa, no feedback, CCing John David Anglin
>  - ia64, no feedback, likely to be removed.
>  - powerpc, found some feedback from the porters, but unrelated to
>    toolchain issues, see
>    https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2013/11/msg00050.html
>  - powerpcspe, no feedback, CCing Roland Stigge.
>  - ppc64, no feedback
>  - s390x, pending upload
>  - sparc, no feedback
>  - sh4, no feedback, doesn't build, CCing Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
> Am 01.12.2013 16:45, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
> > Source: gcc-defaults
> > Version: 1.123
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Tags: patch
> > 
> > Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc,
> > because FTBFS of many packages occur by e.g. c++11 
> > on ports which stayed using gcc-4.6 and g++-4.6,
> > ia64, powerpc, s390x, sparc, alpha, powerpcspe, ppc64, sh4.
> > 
> > And using unified version of gcc must bring happiness 
> > to many package maintainers.
> > 
> > On the other hand, I understand that this changing depends on 
> > the correspondence status of gcc porting,
> > so I leave decision to you.
> This is a decision for the porters.  If there are no active porters, there
> shouldn't be a port.
> > Unfortunately, building gcc-4.8 source package on sh4 has not succeeded yet,
> > so here is a patch which changes gcc-4.8 using on ports except sh4.
> > 
> > Regards,
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 529C7999.2040303@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 529C7999.2040303@debian.org

Reply to: