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

The brief status of Debian riscv porting --2022/07/15

In the past month, Our main focus is still to fix some ftbfs issues
on riscv64. And we got many kindlly support from numerous (team)maintainers so that bugs we filed with patch get their response almost immediately. Many thanks for all. But we still have a lot of packages to go to fix/port from [0] and [1]. Although there are quite a few big packages in there due to the lack of upstream support for riscv64 or some package are not designed for riscv64 at all. But we have a lot of room for improvement here from my view.

In this issue:
+ Some thoughts about fixing ftbfs issue + Others

* Some thoughts about fixing ftbfs issue
** The big problem is that we have about ~10 FTBFS packages on riscv64 with a available patch pending, they are:
a2jmidid_9-2[2], codeblocks_20.03-3.1[3], isc-dhcp_4.4.3-2[4],
mingw-w64_10.0.0-2[5], muse_4.1.0-1[6], openlibm_0.7.0+dfsg-2[7], openmsx-debugger_0.1~git20200913-1[8], psocksxx_1.1.1-2, systemd-bootchart_234-1[9]

If it has your package or a package you are familiar with please help us update
it or to do NMU(if the maintainer of the package has no activity for a long time). It will greatly improve the efficiency of the porting. Thanks again.

Another interesting number is BD-Uninstallable[10] from [1], there is 700+. This is unacceptable if combined with other released arch e.g s390x. The most root solution is still to fix the ftbfs issue especially some -dev package, with luck we can reduce a lot of ftbfs issues like dominoes. * Others
** There is a basic summary about Ports riscv64, you can find here[11]

Special thanks to the debci team, they have enabled scheduling Debian CI[12]
on unstable. Do not worry, the results of tests on riscv64 arch is harmless.
Because the riscv64 is not released arch and they will still have a lot of work to adapt riscv64. Thanks again!

The above is the status about porting riscv64 on Debian from my view,
please let me know if there are any issues.
[0]: https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ftbfs.cgi?arch=riscv64
[1]: https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=riscv64&suite=sid
[2]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995472
[3]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011502
[4]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010807
[5]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014392 [6]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014594
[7]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014338
[8]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1010507
[9]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014158
[10]: https://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states
[11]: https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/riscv64
[12]: https://ci.debian.net/status/
Best Regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: