Your message dated Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:31:09 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#535681: libffado: Support for more arches
has caused the Debian Bug report #535681,
regarding libffado: Support for more arches
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
535681: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=535681
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: libffado
Version: 2.0~rc1+svn1539-1
Severity: important
Hi,
It seems you have restricted the arch list to i386, amd64 and
powerpc. Why? I see no reason why this package should be
restricted to some arches. Other arches support firewire too.
Is there for instance a reason not to enable kfreebsd-i386
and kfreebsd-amd64?
Looking at the SConstruct script, it seems to be basing
optimizations based on /proc/cpuinfo. Please note that
we still support i486 on the i386 port, and it should
run on that. Please do not add options to produce
different output than the default unless you build it
several times and pick up the right one at run time.
Basing it on the CPU you're currently running is _always_
wrong.
It also seems to try and detect if it needs -fPIC or not,
and only enable it on amd64. Unless you have a very good
reason not always enable it, this should be enabled.
(see Policy 10.2).
Kurt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:28:55PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
Hi!
> It seems you have restricted the arch list to i386, amd64 and
> powerpc. Why? I see no reason why this package should be
> restricted to some arches. Other arches support firewire too.
There are mainly two reasons:
* upstream has decided to only support i386, amd64 and powerpc
http://subversion.ffado.org/index.fcgi/ticket/197
http://subversion.ffado.org/index.fcgi/ticket/199
There was also a discussion on the FFADO mailing list. However,
there's also a technical reason:
* FFADO needs atomic operations
I did the upstream patch for SPARC's atomic operations. This might
also work on IA64, however, I don't have access to other
architectures.
Speaking for the FFADO project now: we're not going to support
every single CPU on the market. If you need a specific one, we're
happy to apply the patch (and extend the arch list), but we don't
have the manpower to support it.
> Is there for instance a reason not to enable kfreebsd-i386
> and kfreebsd-amd64?
It's a FreeBSD kernel. FFADO uses libraw1394, and this library is
specific to the Linux kernel's FW stack. (there's also no libraw1394 for
kfreebsd in Debian)
In other words: FFADO runs only on the old ieee1394 Linux FW stack.
(yes, also Juju, the new Linux FW stack, isn't supported by now)
> Looking at the SConstruct script, it seems to be basing
> optimizations based on /proc/cpuinfo. Please note that
That's why I have ENABLE_OPTIMIZATION=no in the debian/rules file.
> It also seems to try and detect if it needs -fPIC or not,
> and only enable it on amd64. Unless you have a very good
That's why I have CFLAGS += "-fPIC" in the debian/rules file.
Ciao
--
mail: [email protected] http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver
--- End Message ---
