Re: Releasability of the HPPA port
Le 6 août 2010 à 03:46, dann frazier a écrit : On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:30:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: Dear HPPA porters, dear HPPA port users, the Release Team is currently wondering if it makes sense to release with HPPA as a regular stable architecture with squeeze. It might be that it is not up to the standards of a regular Debian release. We seem to chase random segmentation faults, causing multiple give-backs to eventually yield a built package. I realize this doesn't address the larger concerns you mention, but.. I've found that a workstation I recently acquired (a c3700) seems to reliably build packages that reliably fail on our existing buildds (subversion, for one). I assume CPU architecture differences allow this box to be immune to the issues causing these builds to fail. Out of curiosity, are you running a 32 or 64bit kernel? It seems weird to me though that C3700 would work and not J6700, since ISTR their respective hardware don't differ that much... Due to the formfactor, I don't think HP would be able to host it and my upstream bandwidth at home is too limited. If the project wanted to make this machine a buildd and find hosting for it, I'd be willing to maintain the buildd. IIRC C3700 is B2000-style box. It can be racked sideways with L-shapped support rails. My previous hosting offer still stands, although I believe it might not be the easiest/closest one for you ;-) HTH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e3419b17-e155-4e9d-a8be-90658ff04...@debian.org
Towards common sense to
Towards common sense The commotion surrounding vaccinations used for waging political battles will eventually turn against communities. The 1918-1919 flu pandemic, nicknamed the Spanish flu, was also caused by the A/H1N1 swine flu virus. Its first wave had a similar course to the current incidence of disease. In spring 1918, the first wave of the pandemic hit. Although highly contagious, it did not bring with it a significant death rate. The second outbreak, which commenced in September 1918, was marked by an incredibly high number of fatalities, whilst the third took place in 1919. The course of the current A/H1N1 pandemic without a great number of fatalities (if one can describe the death of 20,000 people in such a way) is not conducive to a rational assessment of the preventive vaccination programme. For many politicians, populism and the desire to win over voters are the only determinants of their actions. Such politicians prey on the low awareness on the part of society, which notices only events, and imagining what could potentially happen is outside their visible realm. Also, a lack of knowledge about the course of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 and its death toll, estimated at between 50 million and 100 million people, is not conducive to preventive vaccinations. If an anti-vaccination attitude is reinforced in social beliefs, then the future may see the deaths of millions of people as a result of abandoning general preventive vaccinations. The message to inform people of the risk carried by an influenza pandemic is an important one. Let us hope that the situation will be different from the regularity, which often accompanies capital markets, where world crunches occur within cycles every few decades or so, and awareness of the threat dies with the generation. We find ourselves in a place and time where the future of mankinds existence in the conflict with mortal viruses is clinched. Let us stop the feverish bus ride, fed with political populism and short-sighted electoral perspective. Let us look at the warning signs, which mankind encountered in his path in the years 1918-1919. If you believe that it is worthwhile doing something for the common good, then forward this appeal to others or link to: www.right-to-health.org so that the information has a chance to spread. We are the ones who can influence whether common sense prevails. Sense is sometimes in the minority and loses out to populism, but let us not give up just yet!
Re: Bug#588391: gcc-4.4: please automatically use -ffunction-sections when necessary with -fPIC
On 06.08.2010 00:58, brian m. carlson wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:59:18PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: On 08.07.2010 01:42, brian m. carlson wrote: Package: gcc-4.4 Version: 4.4.4-6 Severity: wishlist Because the ELF ABI for hppa requires relative jumps which are limited to 17 bits[0], programs frequently require the use of -ffunction-sections. It would be preferable if (on hppa or otherwise) -ffunction-sections were implied by -fPIC when otherwise gcc would generate text sections that are too large. After all, there's really no reason to generate .o files that are, for all practical purposes, useless. It would also make numerous package maintainers and hppa porters very happy, I suspect. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=558999#15 as this specific example shows, -ffunction-sections isn't enough, but -mlong-calls is needed. In that particular instance -mlong-calls is needed, but in the general case it appears not to be, judging from the numerous cases where only -ffunction-sections (and not -mlong-calls) is in use already in the archive. For example, #160538. My wishlist request still stands. waiting for feedback form the HPPA porters. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5c2429.2040...@debian.org
Re: Releasability of the HPPA port
Carlos, On 08/06/2010 10:48 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: I think we do agree that it will be included into stable for the last time. Under which metrics or evaluation process is this decision being made? basically the criteria listed on [0] (which is again not entirely up-to-date, though). I think for hppa it would be mainly architecture availability, keeping the buildds running for yet another stable release until EOL (which would for squeeze probably be now+0,5y+2y+1y=now+3,5y), buildds being redundant hardware-wise, builds not failing for the security in non-obvious manners[1], having some upstream support, etc. More than one porter is also important so that we are not left alone if the only person working on it needs to shift his/her priorities (c.f. bus factor). Kind regards, Philipp Kern [0] http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html [1] Like requiring multiple give-backs until it finally builds. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5ce47a.1020...@debian.org
