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

Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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.

You are mistaken (since I'm also upstream). I notice you seem to
triage pre-sarge bug reports, maybe you want to ask the participants
of the bugs discussion first before jumping to conclusions.

> 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 
> unreproducible.

I asked David at that time for which configuration he got actually
working large executables/libraries which don't segfault on startup.
I got no response.


Reply to: