Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Am 17.04.2018 um 19:15 schrieb Thorsten Glaser : >> Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. This project >> has cost me lots of blood, tears and sweat and if someone is asking >> for it to be completely thrown out out of nothing, I'm getting a bit >> stressed

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Adrian wrote: >Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. This project >has cost me lots of blood, tears and sweat and if someone is asking >for it to be completely thrown out out of nothing, I'm getting a bit >stressed out. I completely agree here. While I’m no longer involved

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The core problem is that in the control file the permitted syntax for > the Architecture: filed is much more restricticted than the permitted > syntax for (build) dependencies. This is dpkg bug #807264. Best wishes, Mike

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:07:41PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I conclude that the Debian project is running no real m68k hardware any > > more (please correct me if I'm wrong) and we are possibly doing a > > service for some users who potentially also run qemu (wild guess of > > mine). I'm

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:38:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > recently some R packages received bugs that seem to stem from a problem > with the build setup (specifically, a qemu bug). When I asked back in > one of the bugs[1] whether there are real m68k users I've got the answer > >

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Philipp Kern writes: > On 03/28/2018 07:26 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Back when I was maintaining OpenAFS, I frequently wanted some way as a >> maintainer to easily tag a package as "this will never for the >> forseeable future be supported on this architecture" and move on.

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 03/28/2018 07:26 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Back when I was maintaining OpenAFS, I frequently wanted some way as a > maintainer to easily tag a package as "this will never for the forseeable > future be supported on this architecture" and move on. We don't have a > great mechanism for doing

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:26:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > The chances of anyone really wanting to run some of this scientific > software on m68k seem remote, so it feels like it would be an overall > reduction of friction if the maintainer could just say "I don't support > this arch"

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Holger Levsen writes: > I'd suggest you let go and stop caring about m68k. m68k has been dropped > from Debian many releases ago, thus IMO bugs affecting only m68k are > probably at most normal severity, though minor or wishlist IMO make > equally sense. Or just closing

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hello, There is clearly some dissatisfaction between the science team and the m68k porters. Several behaviours have been identified in various mails to this thread that are causing friction for the other team's work. ISTM that these issues could well arise between any group of porters and any

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi Andreas, I'd suggest you let go and stop caring about m68k. m68k has been dropped from Debian many releases ago, thus IMO bugs affecting only m68k are probably at most normal severity, though minor or wishlist IMO make equally sense. Or just closing them as out of scope. Or you could tag them

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Usage of real m68k hardware"): > Just to not make that mistake again: Is it the > > "I'm wondering when it might be time to fully drop a hardware >port instead of draining developer time for ethernity" > > in my mail you s

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi Andreas, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:11:04PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: >> Or is there some shortcoming of the BTS that is driving this? > > I think "wontfix" is exactly the feature of the BTS that was invented to > solve

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 28/03/18 12:00, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:36:16PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. > > Sorry, this was not intended. > >>> In my experience, most arguments (not "mere" disagreements) have

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi Finn, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:11:04PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: > Is there actual value in increasing the closed bug count with "wontfix"? For me there is some value. Last year I've closed more than 300 bugs in the Debian Med team and in my Debian work more than 1300[1] just in this team.

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi John, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:36:16PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. Sorry, this was not intended. > > In my experience, most arguments (not "mere" disagreements) have stemmed > > from regrettable miscommunication but all

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > I have worked as a physicist myself for a long time and also did numerical > physics and have dealt with a lot of software written by scientists. The > quality of scientific software is usually of exceptional low quality > because

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi Chris! On 03/28/2018 06:01 PM, Chris Lamb wrote: > May I gently and cordially ask for a toning down of the rhethoric > in this thread? :) Yes, of course. But Andreas hit a nerve with this on me. This project has cost me lots of blood, tears and sweat and if someone is asking for it to be

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Andreas Tille wrote: > I'm personally drawng the decision that I will tag any bug that concerns > scientific software (which is my main focus) and that bug is on m68k > only as wontfix and will set severity to minor. I'm sorry but my focus > is on real use cases and

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Dear -devel, […] May I gently and cordially ask for a toning down of the rhethoric in this thread? :) Whilst everyone would agree that the m68k port has its problems and is certainly capable of imposing undue drain on developer time, I'm sure most would also understand and perhaps even relate

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

(excluded debian-...@lists.debian.org, as I've posted this text already there in mistake. Re-Posted here for completeness) Hello Andreas, On 28.03.18 08:38, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > recently some R packages received bugs that seem to stem from a problem > with the build setup

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Hi, Andreas Tille writes: > Getting fake bugs of severity important due to the fact that no real > hardware is used since it is to weak is not really convincing for > maintainers to spent time on it. the new 68080 CPU core might be powerful enough to build on real hardware

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

(excluded debian-...@lists.debian.org, as I've posted this text already there in mistake. Re-Posted here for completeness) Hello Andreas, On 28.03.18 08:38, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > recently some R packages received bugs that seem to stem from a problem > with the build setup

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

Le 28/03/2018 à 10:10, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit : > On 03/28/2018 04:59 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: >> I see no point in your repeated "to be honest" and blame others about >> low quality. If in doubt read these three bug logs: >> >>#882555, #887680, #887682 >> >> All say >> >>this

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 03/28/2018 04:59 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I see no point in your repeated "to be honest" and blame others about > low quality. If in doubt read these three bug logs: > >#882555, #887680, #887682 > > All say > >this failure turned out to stem from a problem with the build >

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:50:52PM +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > To be honest, lots of that scientific code has questionable quality > and I have seen lots of packages from the Debian Science team with > hard-coded compiler options and other non-sense. So, to be honest, > I could

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 28.03.2018 08:38, Andreas Tille wrote: I conclude that the Debian project is running no real m68k hardware any more (please correct me if I'm wrong) and we are possibly doing a service for some users who potentially also run qemu (wild guess of mine). I'm wondering when it might be time to

Re: Usage of real m68k hardware

On 03/28/2018 03:38 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I conclude that the Debian project is running no real m68k hardware any > more (please correct me if I'm wrong) and we are possibly doing a > service for some users who potentially also run qemu (wild guess of > mine). I'm wondering when it might be