Re: Sparc removal
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 04:34 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[...]
> I'm a bit unsure. If sparc ever comes back as sparc64, it might make
> sense to reuse some bits. But I'm not sure whether both archs would be
> close enough for that to happen, or if they would be different beasts
> like arm{el,hf} and arm64 are. I suppose the former might be true since
> it might just be about the number of bits in kernel/user-space, rather
> than a completely new arch.
[...]
We haven't supported actual 32-bit SPARCs for a long time; the last
release with 32-bit kernel images was etch. So "only" userland would
change, and I believe the 32-bit and 64-bit modes for userland are not
that different.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but it's the only one we've got.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian drops support for sparc
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 08:20:41AM +0200, Kjetil Oftedal wrote: > So I guess what is being dropped this time around is the official support for > 64-bit kernel + 32-bit/v8plus userland. > > Then only the unofficial port of 64-bit kernel + 64-bit userland remains. That seems a bit misleading, because I don't see what would be preventing sparc from ultimately reappearing together with sparc64 on debian-ports.org. Given that it already has a bunch of buildds and still has a better archive coverage (the percentage of total packages build on sparc compared to total), that's a fairly solid foundation. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- 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/20150731092004.gb23...@entuzijast.net
Re: Debian drops support for sparc
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 02:53:33PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > The problem is that numerous other issues - haven't. > > It would be nice to narrow things down to the real issues. Well, let me try to clarify what I've already said: * More people have to become what is known as sparc porters in Debian. That means being involved in making sure sparc package build failures in Debian are attended to - as opposed to currently listed 1 single person. * The default compiler is apparently stuck on an old version, or was at some point? I can't verify that at https://packages.debian.org/gcc Someone should investigate what went wrong there - judging by the previous difference in opinions regarding whether 32-bit userland is viable, it would probably be necessary to take that to the debian-gcc list * The buildd kernels haven't been stable enough. Someone should talk to the buildd maintainers at sp...@buildd.debian.org to see what the status is. Perhaps this all seems like not 'real' issues to kernel people, but there's nothing more real for Debian sparc users and buildd maintainers than the issue of nobody being around in the standard Debian communication channels to hear them scream :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- 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/20150731091704.ga23...@entuzijast.net
Re: Sparc removal
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 04:34 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I'm a bit unsure. If sparc ever comes back as sparc64, it might make > sense to reuse some bits. They can always be recovered from the VCS history or the attic. Ian. -- 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/1438327881.28924.57.ca...@debian.org
