Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
* Thibaut VARENE: I'm not sure I understand this correctly though: what's needed right now is a debian-packaged etch-supported kernel (ie, 2.6.18 if my memory serves me right?) that works on hppa? Is it any different that the kernel package shipped with etch? (I suspect it is since the latter is not being used) If so, how so? We see issues with the stable-security buildd (peri); it's often not available when we need it. IIRC, those are caused by kernel stability issues, but my memory is a bit foggy. For lenny, there are a couple of Berkeley DB issues that could need some attention. I'd also prefer if all architectures could provide the full threading API, with cross-process mutexes and stuff like that (which presumably would enable us to use that to fix the Berkeley DB bugs). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 01:05:49AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: The developer machines have been unavailable for months, so Debian developers who don't have their own hppa machine are unable to work on their own packages or fix bugs. We had some machines setup and running last yearwhat happened to them? Is lamont the only person able to support those? The DD accessible machine is paer.debian.org and there are a few hppa buildd machines that are just accessible by the buildd folks like lamont. These machines are all supported by DSA and run Debian stable. ... [ snip ] Matt, thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize it had gotten that ugly. But I also don't see a way for us to support etch since it feels like we barely have enough people to support kernel.org + unstable (debian). Not unless some new folks wants to volunteer to help. I'd be happy to review patches for this and provide guidance. My impression was my and Thibaut's efforts to provide public access to parisc/ia64 machines has covered the visible need. But that's been informal and not a substitute for having official machines up and running. I'm not sure how Thibaut is generating his kernels and running his machines, but if he can do it in a DSA supportable manner (which means etch userspace and kernel packages up to date with security patches) then maybe he can help get the debian.org machines accessible again. I suspect he is probably running unstable and building kernels by hand though... Yes, as am I (though I'm not a DD). thanks, grant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
clone 482902 -1 reassign -1 general severity -1 serious thanks Aurelien Jarno writes: severity 482902 wishlist tag 482902 + upstream tag 482902 + wontfix thanks Matthias Klose a écrit : Package: glibc Version: 2.7-11 Severity: important Please build libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages; there is no package build-depending on libc6-hppa64-dev, but we need these packages to run the testsuites for binutils and gcc-4.X. Currently these packages are completely untested, although used to build the 64bit flavour of the kernel on hppa. There is no upstream support for 64-bit glibc on hppa, so this bug is currently a wontfix. Please provide us a patch. that's fine. in this case we should drop support for hppa for lenny. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
severity 482921 important thanks Hi, * Matthias Klose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080526 00:06]: Aurelien Jarno writes: Matthias Klose a écrit : Package: glibc Version: 2.7-11 Severity: important Please build libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages; there is no package build-depending on libc6-hppa64-dev, but we need these packages to run the testsuites for binutils and gcc-4.X. Currently these packages are completely untested, although used to build the 64bit flavour of the kernel on hppa. There is no upstream support for 64-bit glibc on hppa, so this bug is currently a wontfix. Please provide us a patch. that's fine. in this case we should drop support for hppa for lenny. I fail to see currently why no support for 64-bit glibc (while we have a 32 bit port) is a reason to drop the port. Hppa-porters, do you have any opinion on that? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please build libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages; there is no package build-depending on libc6-hppa64-dev, but we need these packages to run the testsuites for binutils and gcc-4.X. Currently these packages are completely untested, although used to build the 64bit flavour of the kernel on hppa. There is no upstream support for 64-bit glibc on hppa, so this bug is currently a wontfix. Please provide us a patch. that's fine. in this case we should drop support for hppa for lenny. What kind of nonsense is that?? Why should we drop support for hppa for lenny because hppa doesn't have a 64bit userland?? Can you be a bit more explicit as to what you need given the above? Again I repeat: *there is no hppa 64bit userland runtime*. The only reason why we have 64bit gcc/binutils is to build 64bit kernels needed by some machines. T-Bone -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#482902: please provide libc6-hppa64 and libc6-hppa64-dev packages
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 01:17:06AM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:21:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: that's fine. in this case we should drop support for hppa for lenny. Probably a good idea. I don't think anyone's doing much work with hppa and Debian any more. I kind of resent that affirmation. Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess. Not even questioning its grounds, I'm sure we don't decide to evict an architecture simply based on doubt, and uncertainty? hppa doesn't have any major flaw we're aware of, it has porters dedicated to maintaining it and it keeps up with the archive (99.9% of lenny is built on hppa[0]). Does it really have porters dedicated to maintaining it? http://wiki.debian.org/hppaLennyReleaseRecertification The Debian port is maintained by the following developers, who actively work on architecture specific issues: 1. KyleMcMartin 2. ThibautVarene 3. ... 4. ... 5. ... I have a fairly good idea what Kyle's been doing recently. What have you done for the hppa port recently? Does anybody else intend to step up to be porter 3, 4 and 5? The developer machines have been unavailable for months, so Debian developers who don't have their own hppa machine are unable to work on their own packages or fix bugs. I'll just assume this was the expression of your personal opinion, and I'll state mine which is pretty much opposed to what you suggest. In the end I'm sure any decision will be taken based on facts, which is fine with me. What is needed here is not some Descartian dialect designed to separate truth from falsehood, but people putting in some work. The port has been coasting for several years now and things are gradually rotting. Do we put a stake in the corpse now, or make an effort to fix some bugs? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
