On Tue, 20 May 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 21:03 +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > Yes, and then you declined to send your patch upstream, and a Debian > > developer picked up my patch instead. > > > > When I worked on this, I discovered that your patch was inadequate, > > that the problem was not the m68k ABI, and that you threw away a good > > opportunity to improve the upstream project. > > And, did your patch get merged upstream yet? > > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/127546 > > It's still open which proves my point. And that's just one of many > projects that are affected by the alignment issue as you can see from my > list. > You've never reviewed the patch. What is wrong with it? > > > > I know they were ported to a variety of ABIs with a variety of > > > > alignment > > > > rules, that do not guarantee natural alignment of integer types. > > > > > > I see. Since you haven't tested it, it means the bug doesn't exist. > > > > No it means I never had a need for those languages on m68k. Does a bug > > exist if no-one executes it? How many actual users are there for the > > Debian/m68k JVM, besides Debian porters? > > How many actual users in production exist on Debian/m68k except hobbyists? > > You're using an argument that works for both sides. > No, my argument was that you have failed to identify those packages that actually need porting. > > > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > > > I assumed the bug may exist, but when I asked about it, you evaded the > > question. > > I have created a wiki page for this exact matter: > > https://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Alignment > All you have said is that upstream codebases refuse to improve their code and that's why an ABI break is needed. This makes no sense at all.
