Re: phylonium 1.7 build fails on 32-bit archs
Hi, On 24.06.23 22:10, Andreas Tille wrote: Am Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:43:39PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: In this particular case, it should be relatively straight forward to get this working on 32-bit, w/o too much debugging etc. Fine for me. Agreed. Feel free to limit phylonium to 32-bit architectures for now. Whatever is the easiest for you. I will try and fix the problem upstream in the next version. Thanks for all your hard work. Best, Fabian
Re: phylonium 1.7 build fails on 32-bit archs
Am Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:43:39PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > In this particular case, it should be relatively straight forward to get > this working on 32-bit, w/o too much debugging etc. Fine for me. > > I do not say it does not make any sense to support 32bit - but we simply > > have more important stuff to do IMHO. > > On an un-related note - do we have any new packages that we should work > on for trixie? Highest ranking would be python3-tensorflow Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: phylonium 1.7 build fails on 32-bit archs
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 05:41:08PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 03:56:19PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > Otherwise, do you want phylonium to support only 64-bit archs, and > > should we ask for removal of 32-bit entirely? > > In case of leaf packages of Debian Med we can safely assume that they > are used on 64bit in practice. Any mentionable time cycles we spent for > making it work on 32bit will stop us working on more valuable targets. In this particular case, it should be relatively straight forward to get this working on 32-bit, w/o too much debugging etc. > I do not say it does not make any sense to support 32bit - but we simply > have more important stuff to do IMHO. On an un-related note - do we have any new packages that we should work on for trixie? -- Best, Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: phylonium 1.7 build fails on 32-bit archs
Am Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 03:56:19PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > Otherwise, do you want phylonium to support only 64-bit archs, and > should we ask for removal of 32-bit entirely? In case of leaf packages of Debian Med we can safely assume that they are used on 64bit in practice. Any mentionable time cycles we spent for making it work on 32bit will stop us working on more valuable targets. I do not say it does not make any sense to support 32bit - but we simply have more important stuff to do IMHO. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
phylonium 1.7 build fails on 32-bit archs
Hi Fabian, I happened to update phylonium to 1.7 and uploaded, sometime back. Unfortunately it fails on 32 bit archs: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=phylonium&ver=1.7-1 with: | process.cxx: In lambda function: | process.cxx:222:39: error: no matching function for call to ‘max(saidx64_t&, long int)’ | 222 | this_length = std::max(inter.l, 0l); | | ^ This seems to be because the new version exports and assumes the target arch to be 64-bit and uses a typedef of int64_t to saidx64_t everywhere. There are 32-bit definitions present in /usr/include/*/divsufsort.h and probably this should be used for archs that are not 32-bit (using saidx_t). Can you please take a look? Otherwise, do you want phylonium to support only 64-bit archs, and should we ask for removal of 32-bit entirely? -- Best, Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
