Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
Hello and apologies for the cross-post, I've built GCC 4.9 on my PowerMac G5 (ppc64) running Debian 7.3. I'd like to support the port of Debian to this platform using GCC 4.9 and would appreciate a pointer on where to begin if possible. Additionally, I could provide a SSH login to the machine. Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Matthias Klose Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:00 AM To: David Gosselin ; Patrick Baggett Cc: debian-po...@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: preparing for GCC 4.9 sorry, can't help with this. setting up a pbuilder or sbuild, and start building packages from the base system? Matthias Am 13.05.2014 03:26, schrieb David Gosselin: I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us know how to begin. Thanks, Dave On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matthias et al, I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. Where do I start? Patrick On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5371fb4e.9090...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/B91D376632C449D19144C06F2D3226D4@Sam
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'm confident that other than one or two potential outliers, test build results on powerpc and ppc64 should have the same number of regressions as ppc64el, and also quite confident that where that's not the case, we can get it fixed in a hurry, so please do those arches in lockstep with the rest. ... Adam PS: Switching hats to arm64, that one should also rev with the rest, but I think that's probably a no-brainer anyway, given that it's a new ports, where staying on the cutting edge is usually sanee. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140530100040.gw28...@0c3.net
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
I tested to build kernel for Loongson 3 with gcc-4.9. it works fine. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Adam Conrad adcon...@debian.org wrote: On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'm confident that other than one or two potential outliers, test build results on powerpc and ppc64 should have the same number of regressions as ppc64el, and also quite confident that where that's not the case, we can get it fixed in a hurry, so please do those arches in lockstep with the rest. ... Adam PS: Switching hats to arm64, that one should also rev with the rest, but I think that's probably a no-brainer anyway, given that it's a new ports, where staying on the cutting edge is usually sanee. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mips-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140530100040.gw28...@0c3.net -- Yunqiang Su -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6WZjC=2ivjhkflif1dix+p7pqgd-qrpj8y6zqcjzxm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
Hi, On 08/05/14 16:25, Matthias Klose wrote: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I rebuilt 105 source packages on kfreebsd-amd64 comprising minbase and build-essential (except for GCC itself) using GCC 4.9 and did not notice any new build failures introduced by it. I'll continue to check that the binaries compiled by GCC 4.9 are actually okay. The issue with running the GCC testsuite on kfreebsd-amd64 buildds is being fixed by FreeBSD upstream, and on Debian buildds within 1-2 weeks. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5381122c.3010...@pyro.eu.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
sorry, can't help with this. setting up a pbuilder or sbuild, and start building packages from the base system? Matthias Am 13.05.2014 03:26, schrieb David Gosselin: I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us know how to begin. Thanks, Dave On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matthias et al, I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. Where do I start? Patrick On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5371fb4e.9090...@debian.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
Hi Matthias et al, I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. Where do I start? Patrick On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us know how to begin. Thanks, Dave On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matthias et al, I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. Where do I start? Patrick On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Matthias Klose wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org OK. I will cooperate in ppc64 port as possible as i do, at least, tests of rebuilding the packages of buildd with gcc-4.9. Regards, - -- Hiroyuki Yamamoto A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA 91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTbXdtAAoJEDoQWcZSAwTcH04P/ixcu5J5qvYu6jgiB4E6NjaQ 6be0mrGI26KYv+h2jJ09+5bgPx4JS/JBlvM9ACK1XHnOGovgTG21CXumPmvwLZ3T ePO54VsyARPgElZ/ZQg8V8rNozxN+sMtQSKZ2F72a6v/xE5ydNHPQpG5/ecewDzY 0LB/Sy+EZoPYQJ9GExWaVLscAjxMLko9GvMwB19Ol48It2UygtXDD0XL+RUiMMWJ tBbwZ+djAVDII1auqroicaeurXEXYrDkYKt5ECxlsJyWP7YaX8h9T9rTNePIxho9 kgDbTW8R4Jcscxzv1rE11fomQeJDft5LqpW0go1tLOjKm4W4N44uC7FI8TdSyART DYVvW3GZJvMroNNATkFJMopEVsPOr5KIAzmmIlqNT1NsBKzfLQGkSZ/yrdpZl2r4 khUMXELPCMkpv1PibvcB/BszH+eP1/AQ/clwk1sRl1oeeyKXiwD3k9WzIq3f+D1+ rMzocwwy9U3gSntubt0cYElWmpb5cYbZELlBNiIE6zyYNZe9e4DC3adjREAkto8j 7fYdmoytih7hX+hJ2iiS8l9mf65uGDG7fyH5+ZL1Q/OZcd7QrrgdfhYR6ravJtcQ KyWX3a0Qud2BRHhkTQQl79rHNkeYnKJtnKkd/63GamznuRXF6qa+UWQ4CJsGMX3C K4deC7n0232ZuW9qj2hq =n4y4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536d776e.6020...@gmail.com
preparing for GCC 4.9
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release) architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I set a build farm with gcc-4.9 for mips64el. It works well: it has no more failures than your amd64 one. All the buildlogs can be found in http://mips.wicp.net:9998/mips2/buildlog/ I noticed ctpp2 failed due to symbols problems on both amd64(pbuilder) and mips64el(sbuild). It seems that you didn't report bug on it. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org -- Yunqiang Su -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6Ve=nbetyywgw+qm99bohki2q+1dvxw6fzazfna9wc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [m68k] preparing for GCC 4.9
(excluding d-release for what they hatingly call “debian-ports spam”) Matthias Klose dixit: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot Haven’t tried yet, but Helmut Grohne does automated rebootstrapping of some ports using what he can get his hands on, and he said m68k was the best-(cross)bootstrappable port, and was using gcc-4.9 for it, so there are probably at least no ICEs. If Helmut can publish the *.deb files that fall out of such a (cross) rebootstrap, we could try debootstrapping (natively, in ARAnyM) from them, then boot (a VM) into them, to check basic usage. This sounds pretty few work. Other than that… we’ve built src:gcc-4.9 now, which means that at least the C/C-- part survives the three-stage bootstrap AFAICT. packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. … that runs it. I have no idea how to set up such a test rebuild setup, but we have somewhat clonable VMs (and a VM base image that “just” needs to be dist-upgraded to latest sid before using it), so “anybody” can do that for m68k (provided they install the aranym package from sid, as it contains FPU emulation bugfixes required by Python 3.5 at least). Also, I’d be interested in a way to run GCC’s testsuite against an installed compiler, i.e. without taking the five days needed for the bootstrap (plus adding dejagnu and removing disabling the testsuite from the package rules) again. bye, //mirabilos -- theftf Ich gebs zu, jupp ist cool -- theftf zu Natureshadow beim Fixen von Debian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1405081543370.28...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: [m68k] preparing for GCC 4.9
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:49:51PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Matthias Klose dixit: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot Haven???t tried yet, but Helmut Grohne does automated rebootstrapping of some ports using what he can get his hands on, and he said m68k was the best-(cross)bootstrappable port, and was using gcc-4.9 for it, so there are probably at least no ICEs. I should note that rebootstrap builds much less than a minimal chroot. It also does not try to execute any of the results. I did not encounter any ICEs during any builds for any architecture with rebootstrap yet. If Helmut can publish the *.deb files that fall out of such a (cross) rebootstrap, we could try debootstrapping (natively, in ARAnyM) from them, then boot (a VM) into them, to check basic usage. You have two options to achieve that: 1) Check out the rebootstrap git repository, debootstrap a fresh throw-away chroot and run bootstrap.sh in there. Takes 6 hours. Pointers at https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap 2) Submit a patch for git.debian.org:/srv/qa/jenkins.debian.org.git to collect build artefacts. Then tell me, so I can trigger a rebuild. Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140508160731.ga1...@alf.mars
