Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andreas Barth wrote: > >Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us > >bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you > >might want to persuade me. :) > ... > > >So, I think we can say that this bug is even forwarded to upstream, as > >mips Inc is aware of it and working on a fix. > > I begin to get the picture. > > Apparently the MIPS ABI is just plain broken. It contains some sort of > impassable hard limit on relocation table size, breaking random packages at > random times with no possible fix. Nobody can fix this without changing > the ABI.
That's wrong. > Lovely. Good grief, I would not want to support this architecture under > those circumstances, but as long as it doesn't interfere with supporting > other architectures, if you think you can do it, that's fine. > > It seems to me that at a minimum, whenever this bug gets hit any fallout > should be prevented from interfering > with any other architectures. In other words, a GOT table overflow on MIPS > should immediately mean ignoring MIPS for purposes of testing propagation > of that package and all indirectly dependent packages. Which is what happened before sarge by removing the affected packages for mips/mipsel. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]