Hi! On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 17:45:03 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Sat, 2023-01-14 at 18:29:12 +0800, 张丹丹 wrote: > > Package: dpkg > > Version: 1.21.17 > > Severity: wishlist > > Tags: patch > > User: debian-de...@lists.debian.org > > Usertags: loongarch64 > > > - I have added loongarch64 architecture GNU triplet to match the change in > > gcc-12. > > This patch can fix problems when cross-building and ensure gcc and dpkg use > > matched combination. > > Please consider the patch attached. (Reference from rabenda...@gmail.com) > > Hmm, why was the triplet changed? I mean it's not been too long since > it got added into dpkg, and supposedly backwards compatibility should > not be much of an issue (?), but why is this really necessary? > > What does the unqualified triplet stand for now, which is supposed to > be considered the baseline? > > > - The change of gcc-12 for loongarch64, please see the bleow BugID request: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027278 > > > - Are there any missing? Please tell me. > > See above. Also the patch (if it ends up being really necessary) does > not look entirely correct, the entries should be placed before the > more general match. Attached the modified one which now also passes > the test suite («make check»).
The reasons for changing the ABI at this point in time are still not very clear to me (Helmut mentioned some reasons though), and the fact that this was submitted to the gcc package before any discussion seems all wrong. :/ This divergence between dpkg and at least gcc is currently breaking rebootstrap, and the uncertainty of this all is currently blocking a pre-approval request for the pending dpkg release. So what I think I'm going to do is back out (revert) the loong64 support for now, and once this is all clarified I'm happy to reintroduce it again. I'm planning to do at least another release after the upcoming one before the Debian release, where this could be readded. I'll be sending the pre-approval request later today. Thanks, Guillem
