Hi Stefan, On Fri, 6 May 2016 21:49:34 +0200 Stefan Potyra <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > as promised a short status update: > > There have been quite some changes upstream-wise, but unfortunately it still > doesn't build with current gcc version found in unstable(see TLDR about the > reason).
> Amd I've been once again accounted to do the upstream release... > > So with my upstream hat on: I'd very much like to stay FAUmachine in the > archive, however with my DM hat, I think it's best to remove the binary > packages for now to not block anything. > > Are you OK with this plan and/or do you have good advice for me? > > Cheers, > Stefan. > > > TLDR: > FAUmachine uses a forked version of qemu to build a just-in-time compiler. The > idea from Fabrice Bellard is brilliant: Code the emulation of assembly > instructions in C and let gcc produce binary code for it. Then use a script to > mange this binary code to be usable as input as basic blocks for the > jut-in-time-compiler. > > Unfortunately, at this script is highly dependent on the produced assembly code > (e.g. just one return instruction per function) and this usually breaks with > every new gcc version :(. > > This results in the current build breakage, and while this has been fixed for > the gcc version in stable, breakage occurs with the current gcc version in > unstable. > > Thanks for your explanation. That story seems to be like a maintainance hell, it defintily makes it not easier, especially as there is already gcc 6 on the horizon... Frankly, IMHO this is very close to a case of FTBFSIASW.. Sorry to be direct, but such an model will only fly with distributions if upstream is following closely the gcc development. As short-term measure, you can also force an older gcc version -- gcc4.9 is still in the archives: One successful upload will buy you time as then the libpng depdendency will be gone. However, be prepared to be nagged by then next developers as a bird told me gcc-4.9 is to be removed too. But targeting experimental maybe would be an compromise? I'd be ok with binary only removal, but there is no guarantee that it works out: The binaryless-source might be accidentially de-crufted by our ftp-masters... I'll retitle the bug accordingly; (Note: You should tag this "moreinfo" if you want to make sure that removal is not executed) -- tobi
