On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
> >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
> >timescale.
>
> then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least
What is your problem about MIPS? Why do you insist about dropping it? At
least be fair and don't spread FUD.
GCC on mips/mipsel build in less than 2 days on the recent build
machines. It's true that the build time is slightly higher than other
architectures, but the testsuite is done on 3 different ABIs. This is
something that can be tweaked, as suggested for SH4.
Here are the average build time for gcc-4.* since the release of
Squeeze [1]:
| mips | mipsel |
--------+--------+--------+
gcc-4.3 | 42864 | 141863 |
gcc-4.4 | 104400 | 149148 |
gcc-4.5 | 123498 | 114435 |
gcc-4.6 | 95725 | 167799 |
The build time dispersion is explained by the fact we have buildds of
different speed, gcc-* is built by default on them (no_weak_autobuild),
unless this build daemon is already busy.
> sh4 has a workable, accessible developer machine,
mips also has an accessible developer machine, gabrielli.debian.org.
It's true that mipsel doesn't have one (it's being working on), that
said, most issues are reproducible on both. People can also ask on
debian-mips for help in case it's a mipsel specific issue.
> and people within
> Debian who care about the architecture.
MIPS also has Debian people who care about the architecture. See for
example my recent MIPS work:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17159&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17161
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5248&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5262
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5263&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5267
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623014
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623015
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623162
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623598
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg00003.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg00018.html
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12606
All that said, I agree that mips and mipsel architectures are not in
their best shape, but people are working on that. If you consider they
don't follow the release criteria, please give objective arguments.
Aurelien
[1] select package, avg(build_time) from mips.pkg_history where package like 'gcc-4%' and result='successful' and timestamp > '2011-02-13' group by package;
select package, avg(build_time) from mipsel.pkg_history where package like 'gcc-4%' and result='successful' and timestamp > '2011-02-13' group by package;
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature