Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Turbo Fredriksson]

> "Uwe" == Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Uwe> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a
Uwe> list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole
Uwe> sub-architecture.

Well, if I remember correctly, it was the kernel that was the problem.
There is no support for sparc32 in the kernel any more. Or at least,
no major development

So the primary thing is to be the upstream maintainer for the sparc32
kernel port...

Uwe> Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being
Uwe> committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may
Uwe> not be quite correct.

Apparently that is not enough. There is no maintainer for it (that
I know of).
-- 
Albanian subway Panama Nazi radar Cuba nitrate 747 $400 million in
gold bullion nuclear Legion of Doom munitions class struggle
arrangements SEAL Team 6
[See http://www.echelonwatch.org/ for more about this]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09/06/eu_releases_echelon_spying_report/
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23989res20060131.html#echelon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[andrew holway]

Slightly like watching a group of boys poking a nearly dead dog.

On 23/07/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly?  The
> > problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no
> > upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and
> > ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner,
> > sparc32 is effectively dead.
>
> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
> issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.
>
> Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
> some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
> documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.

Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every
architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet
Debian release policy.

http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html>

I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that
such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability
of the existing bugs.

> Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to
> Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite
> correct.

The kernel is but one program in Debian.

--
 \"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Umm, I think |
  `\   so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary!"  -- |
_o__)_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Clint Adams]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:39:10PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
> issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.
> 
> Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
> some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
> documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.

You can start by setting up your own private infrastructure for a new
sparc32 architecture, pointing a couple of buildds at it, and note what
breaks.

You will need to patch gcc and glibc for your new architecture, as you
will need to build for sparcv7 or sparcv8, and we are switching to build
for sparcv8plus, as we are targetting ultrasparcs only.  Once you have
your unofficial port established, it shouldn't be difficult to get
sparc32 support into the official packages.

Then you can do whatever needs to be done with the kernel.  It would be
nice to have things working on all sun4c, d, and m machines.

Hope this helps.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Ben Finney]

Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly?  The
> > problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no
> > upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and
> > ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner,
> > sparc32 is effectively dead.
>  
> OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
> issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.
> 
> Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
> some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
> documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.

Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every
architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet
Debian release policy.

http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html>

I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that
such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability
of the existing bugs.

> Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to
> Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite
> correct.

The kernel is but one program in Debian.

-- 
 \"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Umm, I think |
  `\   so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary!"  -- |
_o__)_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Chris Newport]

Uwe Hermann wrote:


Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus'
git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct.

 


You are missing the point. Those patches were created by enthusiastic
users fixing the problems that they have experienced.

Until someone volunteers to become the official maintainer Sparc32
is effectively dead. An official maintainer is essential as the point of
contact and the person who contantly tests to ensure that changes
elsewhere in the kernel have not caused regressions.

Without an official maintainer who is going to be responsible for
saying that the port is or is not ready for the next kernel release ?.
The Sun4d subset of Sparc32 is an example of cumulative bitrot
over many years which will take a major effort to resolve.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Uwe Hermann]

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly?
> The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no 
> upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure 
> that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is 
> effectively dead.
 
OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of
issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture.

Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe
some are "easy" enough so someone could fix them after reading some
documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them.


> > This starts to sound like m68k part 2.
> 
> No, it is completely different as m68k _does_ have a group of enthusiastic 
> people behind it who actually work on upstream issues. sparc32 has none.

Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus'
git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct.


Uwe.
-- 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no 
> upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure 
> that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is 
> effectively dead.

"Upstream" should really read "kernel", right?

> Kernel development moves too fast for that.

Or does it wander too fast?  ;-)

Thanks,
Ludovic.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Martin Habets]

Frans,

Thanks for that pointer. After trawling through some of the
mailing lists and searching for bug reports I found Robert Reif's
reply indicating this is related to drm and the fact that sparc does
not support cmpxcgh at the moment.

Still not sure how to exactly reproduce this, but I'll try to kick
off a build with drm in it and see what happens. It's a shame, Debian
is normally so good at bug management, and now I'm searching for
one I cannot find it...

If anyone has any more info on this I'd welcome it.

Thanks,
Martin

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:09:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 21 May 2007 21:49, Martin Habets wrote:
> > FYI, 2.6.21 is rock solid on my SS20 here. Do you consider it broken
> > just because of some cdrom issues? Or is there more?
> 
> I don't have more details than this:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2007/05/msg00305.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Gunnar Wolf]

Turbo Fredriksson dijo [Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01AM +0200]:
> Frans> Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release
> Frans> subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves
> Frans> too fast for that.
> 
> Do we really NEED (read: _require_) the 'latest and greatest' (or whatever
> kernel is 'latest and greatest' at freeze (or whenever the release team
> decides to choose which kernel to release with)!?!?!?

Umh... As the kernel development/release scheme has changed from
long-lived stable releases to small, incremental releases with both
bugfixes and main development, yes, I think we require the latest and
greatest kernel available at any given moment for our releases -
Important features are added at every release, and we _do_ need our
users to be able to install on the current systems at release time.

Besides, the kernel team spent quite a lot of effort into integrating
the kernel in such a way we don't have to support as many different
kernel flavors/versions as we did in the past. This is automatically
translated into stabler and more predictable kernel package updates in
unstable/testing. 

> Also have a bunch of SPARC32's running, and I'd like to continue to run
> Debian GNU/Linux on it (read: a reasonable late release - I don't want to
> keep running sarge "for the remainder of it's life" - I have no time or
> resources to keep compiling the whole dist myself).

...Do you have the technical skills to step up and become a sparc32
porter? If so, you can keep the subarch alive. I also hate to see
Debian losing support for a whole and once very popular class of
hardware, but the fact is... With nobody doing this work, there is not
much way to keep it alive.

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Clint Adams]

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> If I knew anything about kernel interior and development, I'd be happy
> to step up, but...

Why don't you step up and learn then?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Turbo Fredriksson]

> "Frans" == Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Frans> Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release
Frans> subarch for that period of time. Kernel development moves
Frans> too fast for that.

Do we really NEED (read: _require_) the 'latest and greatest' (or whatever
kernel is 'latest and greatest' at freeze (or whenever the release team
decides to choose which kernel to release with)!?!?!?

Also have a bunch of SPARC32's running, and I'd like to continue to run
Debian GNU/Linux on it (read: a reasonable late release - I don't want to
keep running sarge "for the remainder of it's life" - I have no time or
resources to keep compiling the whole dist myself).

Frans> of enthusiastic people behind it who actually work on
Frans> upstream issues. sparc32 has none.

If I knew anything about kernel interior and development, I'd be happy
to step up, but...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Russ Allbery]

elw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in
> the kernel upstream.

Why is that obvious?  We were a huge SPARC shop and I don't think we have
any hardware left that can't run 64-bit SPARC code.  I expect many sites
that were running SPARC are in the same boat.

Can you even buy sun4m hardware any more other than off of eBay?

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Frans Pop]

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 16:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being
> > maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the
> > 2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue.
>
> It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in
> the kernel upstream.

"Eventually" is not good enough.

> Why the rush to kill off the port, without waiting a relatively sane
> period of time for upstream issues to be fixed?

Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly?
The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no 
upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure 
that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is 
effectively dead.

Waiting 3 months (what you apparently consider a "sane" period) for a fix 
for major upstream breakage is _not_ acceptable for a release arch.
Debian cannot afford to have a broken kernel for a release subarch for 
that period of time. Kernel development moves too fast for that. If the 
current issue is fixed in three months, there will probably be 5 new 
issues that will not be fixed and we'll still not have a working kernel.

> This starts to sound like m68k part 2.

No, it is completely different as m68k _does_ have a group of enthusiastic 
people behind it who actually work on upstream issues. sparc32 has none.

Cheers,
FJP


pgp6UylBhxyxr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[elw]

The sparc32 port has been struggling for some time. Last month Jurij 
Smakov, currently the most active Debian Sparc porter, raised the 
question if support sparc32 should be dropped for Lenny [1].


The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being 
maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the 
2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue.



It seems obvious that someone will *eventually* fix sparc32 support in the 
kernel upstream.


Why the rush to kill off the port, without waiting a relatively sane 
period of time for upstream issues to be fixed?  This starts to sound like 
m68k part 2.


I'd suggest waiting, say, 3 months.

p.s. Yes I have a sparc32 box and yes it runs debian.

--elijah


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Robert Reif]

Frans Pop wrote:


On Monday 21 May 2007 21:49, Martin Habets wrote:
 


FYI, 2.6.21 is rock solid on my SS20 here. Do you consider it broken
just because of some cdrom issues? Or is there more?
   



I don't have more details than this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2007/05/msg00305.html
 


Shouldn't drm be fixed to somehow depend on __HAVE_ARCH_CMPXCHG
rather than failing on architectures that don't support cmpxchg?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 21 May 2007 21:49, Martin Habets wrote:
> FYI, 2.6.21 is rock solid on my SS20 here. Do you consider it broken
> just because of some cdrom issues? Or is there more?

I don't have more details than this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2007/05/msg00305.html


pgpfhbQ39fOPO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Martin Habets]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:00:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> The sparc32 port has been struggling for some time. Last month Jurij 
> Smakov, currently the most active Debian Sparc porter, raised the question 
> if support sparc32 should be dropped for Lenny [1].

I agree with this intent, as I wrote at the time.

> The main reason is the fact that sparc32 support is no longer being 
> maintained upstream for the kernel [2]. A result of that is that the 
> 2.6.21 kernel is currently broken, which forces the issue.

FYI, 2.6.21 is rock solid on my SS20 here. Do you consider it broken
just because of some cdrom issues? Or is there more?
Even though David does not actively support sparc32, he does push our
patches upstream and creates patches himself (and I for one am very
thankfull for that).

> Another reason is that dropping sparc32 support will allow optimization 
> for sparc64 which will result in improved support for the modern sparc 
> systems from Sun and Hitachi. Other distributions have already made this 
> choice.
> 
> Unless a group of people is willing to commit to providing the needed 
> upstream kernel and toolchain support for sparc32, the Debian project 
> will be forced to drop sparc32 for Lenny. Doing this early in the release 
> cycle has the advantage of allowing sufficient time to work on optimizing 
> support for sparc64.
> 
> Given the current problems with sparc32 in the 2.6.21 kernel, the final 
> decision on this will be made before the end of this month.

Please include your specific problem(s) here.

Cheers,
Martin Habets


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:44:44PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> The plan is to continue the existing port, dropping support for 64 bit
> kernels and allowing use of SPARC v9 instructions rather than to do a

I, of course, mean *32* bit kernels there.  

Sorry.

*sigh*

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:

> Fine, as long as you provide 32-bit as well as 64-bit userland.  Otherwise

The plan is to continue the existing port, dropping support for 64 bit
kernels and allowing use of SPARC v9 instructions rather than to do a
new port with 64 bit userspace.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:58:00AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:00:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The sparc32 port has been struggling for some time. Last month Jurij 
> > Smakov, currently the most active Debian Sparc porter, raised the question 
> > if support sparc32 should be dropped for Lenny [1].
> 
> Fine, as long as you provide 32-bit as well as 64-bit userland.  Otherwise
> many programs will pay a substantial performance penalty, as pointer-heavy
> programs double their memory and I/O requirements (and Sparc doesn't get
> any compensating benefit the way x86-64 does from extra registers in
> 64-bit mode).

I think it's going to stay 32 bit userland, just a 64 bit kernel,
and maybe some selected 64 bit libraries and programs.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny

[Joe Buck]

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:00:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> The sparc32 port has been struggling for some time. Last month Jurij 
> Smakov, currently the most active Debian Sparc porter, raised the question 
> if support sparc32 should be dropped for Lenny [1].

Fine, as long as you provide 32-bit as well as 64-bit userland.  Otherwise
many programs will pay a substantial performance penalty, as pointer-heavy
programs double their memory and I/O requirements (and Sparc doesn't get
any compensating benefit the way x86-64 does from extra registers in
64-bit mode).

The GNU toolchain has extensive support for multilibs, and other Linux
distros can have 32-bit as well as 64-bit packages installed, but Debian
has traditionally forced people to use chroot to run 32-bit programs
on a 64-bit OS.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]