On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 16:52 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Maybe the usual suspects which require significant porting work could
> start documenting instructions for porters in debian/README.source.
Thats a good start, but doesn't provide a standard way to find out
which packages contain such
On Jun 06, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is
> > going to be our last port for a very long time?
> you mean like 640kb should be enough for everyone? :)
More like "free ABI is eating the world".
I do not see much future for the
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 10:47 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is
> going to be our last port for a very long time?
There are at least two or three new architectures in the pipeline
already. loongarch64 from Loongson was already
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is
> going to be our last port for a very long time?
you mean like 640kb should be enough for everyone? :)
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > There are lots of packages that need porting to every new architecture
> > that comes along. There are others that don't require porting but
> > benefit in some way from porting to some aspect of
在 2022/6/6 16:47, Marco d'Itri 写道:
> Is this really worth the effort, considering that probably RISC-V is
> going to be our last port for a very long time?
Perhaps loongarch64 will the next port.
https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/loongarch64
Some codes of loongarch64 had been added to upstream
On Jun 06, Paul Wise wrote:
> There are lots of packages that need porting to every new architecture
> that comes along. There are others that don't require porting but
> benefit in some way from porting to some aspect of the architecture.
Is this really worth the effort, considering that
I like this idea. I would personally recommend adding negative priority
as well. You know, it is completely meaningless to port some high performance
scientific computing software to archs like armel...
Meanwhile, different packages varies in the difficulty to port as well.
A software that
Hi all,
There are lots of packages that need porting to every new architecture
that comes along. There are others that don't require porting but
benefit in some way from porting to some aspect of the architecture.
In order to help porters to prioritise those packages and quickly add
support for
9 matches
Mail list logo
