any objections from port maintainers to make gcc-4.4 the default?

2009-09-20 Thread Matthias Klose
Besides the open license issue, are there any objections from port maintainers 
to make GCC-4.4 the default?


As a first step that would be a change of the default for C, C++, ObjC, ObjC++ 
and Fortran.


I'm not sure about Java, which show some regressions compared to 4.3. Otoh it's 
not amymore the default java compiler for all architectures except hurd(?), 
kfreebsd(?) and hppa. hppa already defaults to 4.4, what about the hurd and 
kfreebsd?


Ada will still stay at 4.3 until Ludovic is ready to switch the default to 4.4.

  Matthias


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: Sparc release requalification

2009-09-20 Thread Matthias Klose

On 06.09.2009 16:49, Jurij Smakov wrote:




On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:20:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

On 19.08.2009 16:33, Bastian Blank wrote:

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two 
proposals:
   - have an inplace-transition building required library packages for an
 upgrade as biarch packages and continue to use the current sparc name.

This would mean that many packages needs to be modified. Is it really
worth the work needed if we consider the availability of multiarch in
the next time?

you'll end up modifying a different set of packages for the new
architecture name in control and rules files. I don't know if this is
less or more work.


If I understand this correctly, this would need the modification off all
library packages to implement biarch semantic.


No, just a subset that an update from 32-64bit userland does
work. Again, I don't know how big this subset will be.


Matthias, can you please make a definite statement on whether you, as a
toolchain maintainer, are willing to support the existing 32-bit userland
with a 64-bit kernel, or you consider a transition to 64-bit userland
a necessary condition for sparc to be released with squeeze. This will
be an important factor for the release team to determine what is going


the port is currently using 4.3 as the default, I do plan to make 4.4 the 
default unless port maintainers object [1]. Ubuntu karmic already uses 4.4 as 
the default, but as a community port sparc doesn't get the same attention as 
other ports. Please see [2] for current problems with sparc. I do not plan to 
invest significant time in fixing build issues on sparc for squeeze.


I do commit to prepare binutils and gcc-4.4 for a sparc64 port if this should 
happen for squeeze.


  Matthias


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/09/msg00239.html
[2] http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/ftbfs/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: Sparc release requalification

2009-09-20 Thread Matthias Klose

On 20.08.2009 16:52, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

Bastian Blank a écrit :

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:

I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two 
proposals:
  - define a new sparc64 port, and bootstrap this one using the 32bit port.


This is rather easy. I already did a s390x bootstrap using this method.



If we are not sure that sparc and s390 (ie 32-bit versions) would be
suitable for squeeze, this is almost sure they won't be suitable for
squeeze+1.

Isn't it the right moment to start a sparc64 and an s390x port, and if
they are ready for squeeze release with them? Almost whatever upgrade
solution you offer will require to have at least one release with both
old and new architecture (like we did for arm -  armel).

Given that we already have sparc and s390 in the archive and that we
also already have 64-bit ports, I don't expect any major problem for
those new ports. Also given quite fast hardware exists for those
architectures, it can probably be done relatively quickly.


this seems to be the way to go, but port maintainers seem to lack enthusiasm or 
resources. I'm willing to help, if somebody commits to these ports.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org