Sascha Steinbiss, on 2021-02-20 15:41:44 +0100: > Hi, > > >>> Should we tag this 'upstream'? > >> > >> Ah, good finding! Yes, I believe it would make sense to tag it > >> upstream. > > > > Probably. However, what about providing it for 64bit architectures > > only? I mean the practical relevance for 32 bit architectures is > > very limited and I consider it burned developer time if we care > > for something where we know it provides different results than > > expected and is not used anyway. > > Yes, agreed. I would always be in favour of restricting archs and RM the > rest -- but then again I don't have any stakes in anything non-amd64. > > Any other opinions?
I don't know by which end to solve the 32 bits failures here, so
it might make sense to drop 32 bits. None of the reverse
dependencies I saw were available on 32 bits release
architectures, either because of missing build dependencies
(ariba, plasmidid) or failure to build from source (kleborate).
As far as I can see, the working set would be:
Architecture: amd64 arm64 mips64el ppc64el s390x alpha ppc64 riscv64
(I don't include m68k on which kleborate built successfully,
because the test suite is not run on that architecture.
Otherwise I suspect it would fail.)
Cheers,
--
Étienne Mollier <etienne.moll...@mailoo.org>
Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
