On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 05:50:29PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:27:01PM +0000, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:34:41 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > I disagree with "let's first remove things". If a package like ruby > > > doesn't build on sparc this bug report is RC exactly as long as sparc is > > > a release arch. The release team has (and does) override such bug > > > reports for testing migration if appropriate. Removing the binary > > > package doesn't help at all but just makes things worse. So please don't > > > do it, especially for packages with reverse dependencies. > > > > The big issue (as I understood from the OP) here is that the toolchain is > > not keeping up. Why should the maintainers of other software be bothered > > about that architecture? > > I think the major issue for a particular arch depends on that arch. > For sparc, the majority of times I see posts to debian-sparc for porting > issues, the problem is a bus error, which is not a toolchain issue. > It's a buggy C/C++ code issue in the original package. Alignment issues > are also noted on ia64, but there they're not as obvious since they > cause a SIGSEGV, not a SIGBUS. > > In order to assist developers, I tried to write a library to enable > alignment check on i386/amd64 for ease of debugging, but the C library > does not function correctly with that enabled, so I gave up.
We have a few arches where the behaviour on unaligned access can be controlled with prctl: ia64, hppa, powerpc, alpha. However, I think at least most our hosts including buildds are set up to not cause an error in that case. I would rather see people run it with it enabled. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110910214659.ga25...@roeckx.be