Hi, I’m happy to get aarch64 support in. Please add me to the reviews for stuff that is under BSD or public domain.
Thanks, Lars On 11/03/14 17:40, "Dmitry Shachnev" <mitya57...@gmail.com> wrote: >Lars: this mail needs your attention. > >Hi, > >AArch64 is a new 64-bit ARM architecture, that will be used in a big >range of devices, >from servers to iPhones. See this Wikipedia article for details: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#64.2F32-bit_architecture > >In Debian/Ubuntu, we have been working to enable AArch64 (aka ARM64) >support for Qt >packages. We would like to forward those patches upstream. > >Please see https://bugs.debian.org/735488 for the full discussion and >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=200;bug=735488 for the >patches. > >We understand that these patches might be seen as a new feature for Qt4, >but the >reality is that they will get applied on all distributions wanting to >support arm64, so >it's better to have them upstreamed. > >Let me describe the current situation and patches briefly: > >**Patches already applied in Git**: >[qtbase] https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/410e9cd5b1a6eb87 >(basic detection) >[qtscript] https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtscript/commit/2e049836ee16f4ae >(JavaScriptCore support) > >**Cherry-pick waiting for approval**: >[qt4] https://codereview.qt-project.org/79602 (JavaScriptCore support) > >**Marcin Juszkiewicz’s patches (licensed under either Public Domain or >BSD)**: >[qt4] basic-aarch64-detection.patch [done differently to what was done in >qtbase] >[qt4] mkspecs.patch (mkspecs for qt4) >[qtbase and qt4] syscalls.patch (inotify syscalls numbers) > >**Mark Salter’s patch (licensed under BSD)**: >[qt4] qatomic.patch (atomics for qt4) > >The first issue comes with Marcin’s and Mark’s patches. They are RedHat >employees, and they cannot sign the CLA. So we asked them to put the >patches >under a license which could enable us to merge the patches upstream. >Marcin >agreed to license his patches under CC0 (aka Public Domain) or simply BSD >licensed [0], and Mark under the BSD license [1]. > >[0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735488#179 >[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735488#195 > >The second issue is that Qt may require, only for arm64, -fpermissive to >build. >This could mean that something is not really finished, but it will get >certainly >ironed out with some time. > >Finally we Debian maintainers are not able to verify the patches ourselves >*yet*, as we don’t have access to porterboxes. So far only Debian arm64 >porters >have access. Non the less, patches are already applied in Ubuntu (and most >probably Red Hat too, as the patches come from them), and the current Qt 4 >packages built fine there. If you want testers for the patches, try asking >Marcin or Wookey (CCed), they should be able to help you. > >I am going to submit the missing patches to Gerrit if you have nothing >against >that. > >Kind regards, > >-- >Dmitry Shachnev (on behalf on Debian Qt maintainers) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
