Re: Bug#731069: gcc-defaults: Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc
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).
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
> - 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: 529C7999.email@example.com">http://lists.debian.org/529C7999.firstname.lastname@example.org