Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-13 Thread Matthias Klose
sorry, can't help with this. setting up a pbuilder or sbuild, and start building
packages from the base system?

  Matthias

Am 13.05.2014 03:26, schrieb David Gosselin:
 I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us 
 know how to begin. 
 Thanks,
 Dave
 
 On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Matthias et al,

 I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I get. 
 Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem to 
 just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. 
 I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn. 
 Where do I start?

 Patrick


 On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
 With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change 
 of
 the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
 architectures.  The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends 
 already
 point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures.  Issue #746805 tracks the
 gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module 
 version
 change.

 The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting 
 in
 bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second 
 time in
 March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2].  
 Another
 test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other
 compiler regressions on these architectures.

 I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal 
 chroot
 packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test 
 rebuild
 for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC 
 testsuite
 look okish for every architecture.

 I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course 
 appreciated.
 Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions
 e.g. #746883).  Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may 
 be
 found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g.
 Fedora 21).

 If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I 
 plan to
 make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of 
 May,
 beginning of June.

 Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 
 4.8)
 will be filed.

   Matthias

 [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
 [2]
 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact 
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org

 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5371fb4e.9090...@debian.org



Re: Sparc status ?

2014-05-13 Thread Anatoly Pugachev
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Sébastien Bernard wrote:
 I have no clue why is it marked oldkernel something related to the buildd ?
 
 The debian.org sparc machines do not work reliably with recent kernels.
 That is not sustainable.

 Not only them. All my Sparcs run Squeeze kernels, too, because neither
 Wheezy (3.2) nor Sid kernels (3.12 was the last one I tried IIRC) can
 provide uptimes more than a month. Sometimes they freeze just after a
 few days of uptime. Since I'm back on 2.6.32, I never had issues
 again. Current uptime 92 days.

 Example uprecords:

 From a Sparc installed with Sid in autumn 2013:

  #   Uptime | System Boot 
 up
 +---
 -   192 days, 20:22:44 | Linux 2.6.32-5-sparc64-s  Sat Jan 25 21:38:13 
 2014
  224 days, 09:18:08 | Linux 3.10-2-sparc64-smp  Sat Sep  7 16:16:29 
 2013
  3 5 days, 23:12:41 | Linux 3.12-trunk-sparc64  Fri Nov 29 04:12:01 
 2013
  4 4 days, 01:35:01 | Linux 3.12-trunk-sparc64  Sat Dec  7 15:32:05 
 2013
  5 2 days, 22:44:57 | Linux 3.12-trunk-sparc64  Mon Jan 20 21:36:35 
 2014
  6 2 days, 14:21:37 | Linux 3.10-3-sparc64-smp  Wed Oct  2 04:16:49 
 2013
  7 1 day , 15:14:57 | Linux 2.6.32-5-sparc64-s  Tue Jan 19 04:14:07 
 2038
 +---

 From a Sparc running Wheezy since July 2013, stripped to those uptimes
 since the upgrade to Wheezy:

 14 0 days, 00:19:43 | Linux 3.2.0-4-sparc64 Mon Jul 15 12:22:26 
 2013
 15 0 days, 00:53:29 | Linux 3.2.0-4-sparc64 Mon Jul 15 13:14:06 
 2013
 16 0 days, 00:07:17 | Linux 3.2.0-4-sparc64 Mon Jul 15 14:10:26 
 2013
 17   209 days, 21:29:54 | Linux 2.6.32-5-sparc64Mon Jul 15 14:18:30 
 2013
 -  1877 days, 07:11:40 | Linux 2.6.32-5-sparc64Mon Feb 10 10:50:23 
 2014

 The latter has not much load, it's just an NTP server.

 On my V240, the 3.13 kernel seems to be rock solid (I've been
 rebuilding the gcc package 3 times - 8hours build - without any
 issue).

 It's good to hear that there are least some hardware architectures
 where recent kernels are more stable than on all my UltraSparcs.

I have successfully installed wheezy (debian-7.2.0-sparc-DVD-1.iso)
today to SF V215 hardware. Installation went clean. Upgraded to
unstable, now running 3.14-1-sparc64-smp . Meanwhile compiling 3.14.4
kernel sources as a test with gcc-4.9.  Going to leave this machine
running, just to see how stable it will be.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cadxrzqxof7aekx+mvlpgtgss4_8fu7ryrjfivxx5-upifp7...@mail.gmail.com