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

Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips

Matthias Klose wrote:
>  If
> you think, that availability of compilers on some architectures
> should be release criterium, please bring that up with the release
> team first.
That's not at all what I think.

I think that if there are known binutils bugs for your architecture, which 
supposedly prevent the build of multiple packages --
/either/ forwarding them upstream
/or/ fixing them if they're Debian-specific
/or/ closing them if they're bogus
within a reasonable amount of time (less than a year)
should be a requirement for a port to be considered.

Does the release team agree or disagree?

According to Thiemo Seufer, MIPS has failed this criterion.

He said that GCJ is not present and does not build due to an ld bug which also 
affected ghc (http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2005/10/msg00051.html).  
However, contrary to his claim, there are no bug reports filed regarding this 
for ghc.  The only such bug I could find was 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=274738.  This bug is *not* 
reported upstream.  It has had no activity since November 2004.  According to 
David Daney (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/10/msg00016.html) and 
indeed Matthias Klose 
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/10/msg00020.html) it is 

(The ChangeLog for Debian's GCC package mentions that GCJ was disabled for 
MIPS way back when gcc-3.0 was uploaded because libffi was not ported at that 
time.  It has been ported for a long time by now.  There is no other mention 
in the GCC changelog as to why GCJ is disabled for mips and mipsel.  The only 
other explanation I have found is Thiemo's.)

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist nightmare!

Reply to: