Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:13:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Consider the following: A good starting point would be the popularity-contest data. Anything used in the last half year gets build. Every package thats not compiled is replaced by a dummy package stating why it isn't autobuild, explaining the problem. There is no problem. m68k can still keep up most of the time (hardware problems aside), and at times when this was not possible, we've always been able to add more autobuilders. When installed the dummy package (or a locally build version of the missing deb) would get reported by popularity-contest popcon is not an essential package, for obvious reasons. I also don't want to force people to tell us what packages they want to have for us to compile it. Also, things like this would invalidate the statistics popcon generates, because it would no longer be generated by an evenly distributed subset of our users. Moreover, some people just want to try out things. If they have to compile it themselves before they can even think of running the software, they could just as well be running NetBSD. [...] -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 02:37:21PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: And the next step, is we take advantage of our large network of user computers. When the above happens, we copy the completed package to the archive ... and end up doing all our packages this way. OK, well, it's probably not really practical ... but there's an awful lot of spare computer power hanging around out there, and if it was easy to safely tap into, we could accomplish some great things when people aren't using their machines, ala SETI. I don't know about you, but I resent the idea of having packages in the archive compiled by random, untrusted people. Uploading packages made from modified sources is trivial. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:13:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Consider the following: A good starting point would be the popularity-contest data. Anything used in the last half year gets build. Every package thats not compiled is replaced by a dummy package stating why it isn't autobuild, explaining the problem. There is no problem. m68k can still keep up most of the time (hardware problems aside), and at times when this was not possible, we've always been able to add more autobuilders. I know .oO( /me pads the two 68060 running here ), lets hope it stays that way. But for say Open-Office building it on m68k is such a waste of time that it should be excluded even if the build-depends can be satisfied some day. For now a list of excludes does the job. When installed the dummy package (or a locally build version of the missing deb) would get reported by popularity-contest popcon is not an essential package, for obvious reasons. I also don't want to force people to tell us what packages they want to have for us to compile it. Sarge will install it by default. There is also a patch for popcon to report the used hardware. The intention is to gather statistics to decide what modules go onto the extra drivers floppy and what are suported directly. Also, things like this would invalidate the statistics popcon generates, because it would no longer be generated by an evenly distributed subset of our users. Moreover, some people just want to try out things. If they have to compile it themselves before they can even think of running the software, they could just as well be running NetBSD. MfG Goswin
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Chris Tillman wrote: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. Sorry for continuing the crosspost, I just recently accidently compiling Mozilla 1.5 for m68k, was aiming for Firebird but didn't read the directions ;) . It works just fine, too, though is basically unuseable. But, it runs and works. It took two days to compile ;) It should be fully compilable from source on PPC too, I'd reckon. Scott Holder
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Op vr 28-11-2003, om 06:40 schreef Scott Holder: Chris Tillman wrote: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. I didn't see the quoted mail, as I'm not subscribed to -powerpc. Obviously, this argument has been brought up numerous times, and part of it is, most certainly, true (some packages really are useless on m68k). However, if we would decide to stop compiling some packages for the m68k architecture, there's a serious problem: How do we decide what packages we will build for m68k? If we do decide to stop building some packages, we have to draw a clear line somewhere; but it's hard to tell which packages are useless, and which aren't; there's no clear line to draw, only a (very) blurry one. The reason for this is that useful is a very subjective statement. Some people might find games a useless waste of time, for instance; in very much the same way, some people might think that running KDE on m68k is a useless waste of time, while others might disagree. Even if we did manage to find a good subset of packages which would be 'useful' for our users, I'm sure there will be questions of disappointed users inquiring why packages foo and bar are not available. For these reasons, we've decided not to go that way; we don't make any distinction on whether a package should be built; we build everything we're asked to build, and let users decide whether they want to install it or not. The everything we're asked to build part should be interpreted as all packages that contain m68k or any in their Architecture: control field. Indeed, it has happened in the past that a maintainer removed m68k from his Architecture field because he thought the package was useless on m68k; in such a case, we won't build it, even if the package might compile. Sorry for continuing the crosspost, I just recently accidently compiling Mozilla 1.5 for m68k, was aiming for Firebird but didn't read the directions ;) . It works just fine, too, though is basically unuseable. But, it runs and works. It took two days to compile ;) Yes, that's the usual time. It's not the record-holder, though :-) (No, I don't know what the package with the longest build time is, but there are packages that require almost a week to build on m68k...) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your addressbook. *now*. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Chris Tillman wrote: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. I didn't see the quoted mail, as I'm not subscribed to -powerpc. I think Chris' mail was in reply to my statement on -powerpc (at least I seem to remember that mail, a quick check of my -powerpc mbox shows July 21 as the date) regarding obsolete architectures. No idea where that message got routed around in the meantime :-) Obviously, this argument has been brought up numerous times, and part of it is, most certainly, true (some packages really are useless on m68k). Yep, and I'll refrain from further commenting - you've nicely explained it. (No, I don't know what the package with the longest build time is, but there are packages that require almost a week to build on m68k...) Top: python-qt2 (146h), closely followed by python-qt3 (121h) are top for me. gcc (94h), mozilla-firebird (68h), glibc (63h) are other contenders. Michael
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Op vr 28-11-2003, om 06:40 schreef Scott Holder: Chris Tillman wrote: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. I didn't see the quoted mail, as I'm not subscribed to -powerpc. Obviously, this argument has been brought up numerous times, and part of it is, most certainly, true (some packages really are useless on m68k). However, if we would decide to stop compiling some packages for the m68k architecture, there's a serious problem: How do we decide what packages we will build for m68k? If we do decide to stop building some packages, we have to draw a clear line somewhere; but it's hard to tell which packages are useless, and which aren't; there's no clear line to draw, only a (very) blurry one. The reason for this is that useful is a very subjective statement. Some people might find games a useless waste of time, for instance; in very much the same way, some people might think that running KDE on m68k is a useless waste of time, while others might disagree. Even if we did manage to find a good subset of packages which would be 'useful' for our users, I'm sure there will be questions of disappointed users inquiring why packages foo and bar are not available. ... Consider the following: A good starting point would be the popularity-contest data. Anything used in the last half year gets build. Every package thats not compiled is replaced by a dummy package stating why it isn't autobuild, explaining the problem. When installed the dummy package (or a locally build version of the missing deb) would get reported by popularity-contest and autobuilders would pick it up again. The dummy package should have version 0 so any deb is (hopefully) newer. Alternatively or parallel to that there could be a web or mail interface to get packages added again (which should probably make them top of the buiild queue for the first build). At first some packages would be missing and some people would scream but we can warn before implementing this and hope enough people install popularity-contest on m68k to make this minimal. I'm not advocating this but if we take a turn for the worse this would be an option. MfG Goswin
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On 28 Nov 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if we did manage to find a good subset of packages which would be
'useful' for our users, I'm sure there will be questions of disappointed
users inquiring why packages foo and bar are not available.
...
Consider the following:
A good starting point would be the popularity-contest data. Anything
used in the last half year gets build.
Every package thats not compiled is replaced by a dummy package
stating why it isn't autobuild, explaining the problem.
When installed the dummy package (or a locally build version of the
missing deb) would get reported by popularity-contest and autobuilders
would pick it up again. The dummy package should have version 0 so any
deb is (hopefully) newer.
Alternatively or parallel to that there could be a web or mail
interface to get packages added again (which should probably make them
top of the buiild queue for the first build).
At first some packages would be missing and some people would scream
but we can warn before implementing this and hope enough people
install popularity-contest on m68k to make this minimal.
I'm not advocating this but if we take a turn for the worse this would
be an option.
What about:
Sorry, this package is not (yet) available for your architecture.
If you really want it now, you can build it from sources. This may consume
quite a lot resources (guestimate about time, diskspace, download size,
...).
Do you want to do this (y/N)?
and continue with auto-apt-get-source-debuild...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:55:58PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On 28 Nov 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even if we did manage to find a good subset of packages which would be 'useful' for our users, I'm sure there will be questions of disappointed users inquiring why packages foo and bar are not available. ... What about: Sorry, this package is not (yet) available for your architecture. If you really want it now, you can build it from sources. This may consume quite a lot resources (guestimate about time, diskspace, download size, ...). Do you want to do this (y/N)? and continue with auto-apt-get-source-debuild... And the next step, is we take advantage of our large network of user computers. When the above happens, we copy the completed package to the archive ... and end up doing all our packages this way. OK, well, it's probably not really practical ... but there's an awful lot of spare computer power hanging around out there, and if it was easy to safely tap into, we could accomplish some great things when people aren't using their machines, ala SETI. -- Debian GNU/Linux Operating System By the People, For the People Chris Tillman (a people instance) toff one at cox dot net
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Chris Tillman wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:39:42PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: using debian stable for the last year now... and am still stuck with mozilla 1.0.0 .. are there any other apt-sources that i can add such that i can update mozilla to 1.4 - or even better get a binary of Phoenix? This really sucks right now in Debian, agreed. The ports of greater popularity gets hold by the compilation speed and technical problems of other ports. :-( Well, I'll rise to the bait ... Please keep in mind that compilation speed and technical problems of other ports is exactly what brought you today's support architecture of build dependencies, build-from-source systems like sbuild, autobuilders, just to name a few. Hell, Debian on m68k Macs was there before Debian on Powermacs and other PowerPC machines. Package quality has improved a huge lot over the years, but there's still a lot to be done. And the more architectures to shake out bugs on, the better. Thank you for your attention. We now return to your regular scheduled programming. Michael Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. I disagree. When you start doing this you end up splitting out all the non-mainstream ports and end up with a Debian that will only boot on x86. Remember, PPC people are a minority in the Linux world. Yes, the m68k people are an even bigger minority, but that's not really the point. It's like killing off illegaly imported parrots because they are endangered species (yes, this happens in Norway right now. Yes, you need to be a bureaucrat(sp?) to come up with that solution). The way forward would be to make people stop creating software that doesn't compile on platforms like m68k. Is there any good reason why an application should only work on ONE cpu? ;-) Also, we're compiling for i386 on i686 (does _anyone_ even use 386 machines any more?), so why not compile for m68k on say, i686 or even powerpc? It's only the next step, not a different world ;-) -- AmigaOne dev list FAQ (when I say F, I mean F): http://www.samfundet.no/~olegil/amiga/ Some useful packages: http://www.samfundet.no/~olegil/debian/powerpc/description.txt
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 11:09, Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote: The way forward would be to make people stop creating software that doesn't compile on platforms like m68k. Is there any good reason why an application should only work on ONE cpu? ;-) Certainly not, but then there's no reason that software which works on powerpc shouldn't do the same on m68k either. AFAICT the problem with m68k is that the port in general and the toolchain in particular are no longer well maintained. Also, we're compiling for i386 on i686 (does _anyone_ even use 386 machines any more?), Sure, a 386 is still perfectly usable as a router, e.g. I fail to see the connection to m68k though. -- Earthling Michel Dnzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
using debian stable for the last year now... and am still stuck with mozilla 1.0.0 .. are there any other apt-sources that i can add such that i can update mozilla to 1.4 - or even better get a binary of Phoenix? This really sucks right now in Debian, agreed. The ports of greater popularity gets hold by the compilation speed and technical problems of other ports. :-( Well, I'll rise to the bait ... Please keep in mind that compilation speed and technical problems of other ports is exactly what brought you today's support architecture of build dependencies, build-from-source systems like sbuild, autobuilders, just to name a few. Hell, Debian on m68k Macs was there before Debian on Powermacs and other PowerPC machines. Package quality has improved a huge lot over the years, but there's still a lot to be done. And the more architectures to shake out bugs on, the better. Thank you for your attention. We now return to your regular scheduled programming. Michael
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 01:39:42PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote: using debian stable for the last year now... and am still stuck with mozilla 1.0.0 .. are there any other apt-sources that i can add such that i can update mozilla to 1.4 - or even better get a binary of Phoenix? This really sucks right now in Debian, agreed. The ports of greater popularity gets hold by the compilation speed and technical problems of other ports. :-( Well, I'll rise to the bait ... Please keep in mind that compilation speed and technical problems of other ports is exactly what brought you today's support architecture of build dependencies, build-from-source systems like sbuild, autobuilders, just to name a few. Hell, Debian on m68k Macs was there before Debian on Powermacs and other PowerPC machines. Package quality has improved a huge lot over the years, but there's still a lot to be done. And the more architectures to shake out bugs on, the better. Thank you for your attention. We now return to your regular scheduled programming. Michael Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. -- Debian GNU/Linux Operating System By the People, For the People Chris Tillman (a people instance) toff one at cox dot net
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Op do 01-01-1970, om 07:59 schreef Chris Tillman: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. I disagree, sorry. Dropping Debian support for m68k would probably result in dropping Linux/m68k support, as Debian is the only distribution you can use if you want to run Linux/m68k... This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. Uh, I've lost you here, I'm afraid. Exactly what do you mean? -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On 21 Jul 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do 01-01-1970, om 07:59 schreef Chris Tillman:
Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance
towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of
all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users
get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered
species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some
architectures are concerned.
I disagree, sorry. Dropping Debian support for m68k would probably
result in dropping Linux/m68k support, as Debian is the only
distribution you can use if you want to run Linux/m68k...
Indeed. And if you repeat the argument, after a while you'll have Debian/ia32
only...
This does not involve leaving them out in
the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions
and letting the rest go on.
Uh, I've lost you here, I'm afraid. Exactly what do you mean?
I think he wants us to stay with woody ;-(
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
Op ma 21-07-2003, om 23:17 schreef Geert Uytterhoeven: On 21 Jul 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op do 01-01-1970, om 07:59 schreef Chris Tillman: Well, it's true we owe our elders respect (as I give a quick glance towards my Mac IIci). But, OTOH, I think the current philosophy of all-or-none may be a little too inflexible. Especially as m68k users get fewer and fewer, and developers appear to be an endangered species. We need a plan for quiet, benign senility where some architectures are concerned. I disagree, sorry. Dropping Debian support for m68k would probably result in dropping Linux/m68k support, as Debian is the only distribution you can use if you want to run Linux/m68k... Indeed. And if you repeat the argument, after a while you'll have Debian/ia32 only... Indeed. This does not involve leaving them out in the cold to die, just restricting them to given (working) versions and letting the rest go on. Uh, I've lost you here, I'm afraid. Exactly what do you mean? I think he wants us to stay with woody ;-( I'm afraid so, but I still disagree :-) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
dylan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi-- using debian stable for the last year now... and am still stuck with mozilla 1.0.0 .. are there any other apt-sources that i can add such that i can update mozilla to 1.4 - or even better get a binary of Phoenix? or am i going to have to compile these by hand? Dig around on the mozilla releases site. Someone does build moz binaries, I'm running 1.3 on my debian based iMac. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk
Re: current mozilla or phoenix debs for PPC?
On Jul 18 2003, dylan wrote: using debian stable for the last year now... and am still stuck with mozilla 1.0.0 .. are there any other apt-sources that i can add such that i can update mozilla to 1.4 - or even better get a binary of Phoenix? This really sucks right now in Debian, agreed. The ports of greater popularity gets hold by the compilation speed and technical problems of other ports. :-( or am i going to have to compile these by hand? Are you using testing? If you are, then you could # apt-get install mozilla-firebird and things will be fine for you. Be warned to check the bug regarding mozilla-firebird that I reported on http://bugs.debian.org/198170 as it deals with mozilla-firebird dying on powerpc, but not on i386. Hope this helps, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogério Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
