Hi!
On 9/28/19 11:44 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
> to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
> about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0"
> to "
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development
task"):
> Ian Jackson:
> > Such a small, essentially honorary, contribution wouldn't distort our
> > volunteer setup, and don't need the levels of serious review and
> > enga
]] Ian Jackson
> Such a small, essentially honorary, contribution wouldn't distort our
> volunteer setup, and don't need the levels of serious review and
> engagement that a larger amount does. But it would act as a tangible
> way to express that we would like to see something done and might
> e
Hi Richard!
On 9/29/19 11:26 PM, Richard Z wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386,
>> it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support
>> in the
On 9/30/19 4:53 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:14 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> Having said that, I'm going to unsubscribe from this list now as I realize
>> that what we do in Debian Ports is still not considered useful many others,
>> so I think it's not possible to
On 9/30/19 4:59 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Had I been asked for m68k hardware in this instance, I don't think I
> would have even blinked before approving the request.
The only reason I am asking is because we're currently in a situation
where we need external help. We are trying to be as cost-effec
Hi Ian!
Apologies for my late reply.
On 9/30/19 12:40 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task"):
>> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
>> Debian ports is valuable and import
> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille writes:
Andreas> Hi
Andreas> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian
Glaubitz wrote:
>> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian
>> funds?
Andreas> Besides other good reasons to say "no" to this que
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:49:52PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
>
> Besides other good reasons to say "no" to this question I'm wondering
Hi
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
Besides other good reasons to say "no" to this question I'm wondering
whether donators of our money would consider supporting gcc on m68k is a
g
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc
Ian> development task"):
>> given the reminders that Debian refrains from paying developers
>> for their time, I wonder if it would still be possible to make a
>> small cont
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development
task"):
> given the reminders that Debian refrains from paying developers for
> their time, I wonder if it would still be possible to make a small
> contribution that expresses Debian's interest a
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task"):
> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
> Debian ports is valuable and important and that the m68k GCC task is a
> good idea. I only dislike using Debian funds to p
Hello,
On 30.09.19 06:20, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :
In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
Since the lack o
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:53:33AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> To be clear, I think the work that folks are doing on the unofficial
> Debian ports is valuable and important and that the m68k GCC task is a
> good idea. I only dislike using Debian funds to pay people for their
> time. I think that crow
Le Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a écrit :
>
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
>
> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean tha
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:14 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Having said that, I'm going to unsubscribe from this list now as I realize
> that what we do in Debian Ports is still not considered useful many others,
> so I think it's not possible to find an agreement.
To be clear, I think the
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
>
> Reaching those forums or even organizing a crowd funding campaign might
> be more appropriate.
>
A democratic process like that may also be appropriate to disburse funding
from the Debian Project itself. E.g. Debian Developers could each vote for
a
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386,
> it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support
> in the Linux kernel with new drivers being added regularly [4],
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:22:21 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> >> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay an
Hello Brock!
On 9/29/19 4:10 PM, Brock Wittrock wrote:
> 1) It was a simple enough request and reasonable in my opinion. I'm also glad
> that he was willing to ask in the first place because as some say, when you
> don't ask the answer is already no anyways, so why not ask?
>
> 2) I understand
On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 17:00 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
[...]
> > * Freexian doesn't "use Debian volunteers", nobody is forced to work
> > for Freexian, they all asked to join the team of paid contributors.
> > But Freexian pays them for the
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for
> > > the extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> >
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (D
Either ignore my ability to proofread my emails in their entirety or have a
good laugh at my two things that seemingly became 3. :)
Thanks,
Brock
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Brock Wittrock
wrote:
> Two things from this thread:
>
> 1) It was a simple enough request and reasonable in my opini
Two things from this thread:
1) It was a simple enough request and reasonable in my opinion. I'm also
glad that he was willing to ask in the first place because as some say,
when you don't ask the answer is already no anyways, so why not ask?
2) I understand though why the other side sees his req
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> > extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
>
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:58 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>
> > Regardless, I think you have your answer.
> > Absent the appearance of significant new support, there is not
> > sufficient interest in spending Debian funds on m68k gcc development.
>
> I don't think we have heard enough voice
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 01:58:13PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I don't think we have heard enough voices yet to be able to answer that
question.
Are you really asking for a long list of +1s? Ok--I agree with the
majority of expressed opinions that this is a bad idea.
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
> But I think the list on the page archive criteria is a bit dishonest as
> well when it asks "Are machines available to buy for the general public?"
> while I don't think an IBM Z mainframe is available to buy for the general
> public.
At last for upstream, the diffe
On 9/29/19 1:17 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned about your argumentation style in this thread. It
> feels to me a lot like you're saying that people are wrong simply
> because they are disagreeing with you. In future discussions, I'd
> recommend finding a way of having the discussion
Hi Hector,
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:49 PM Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
> > And there are embedded open source Coldfire boards being developed:
> >
> > > http://sysam.it/cff_amcore.html
> > > http://sysam.it/cff_stmark2.h
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:48:51PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les
> 12:20:
.
> > As Linus stated in his mail, the Amiga never dies:
> >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/24/993
>
> Reaching those forums or even o
On 9/29/19 12:48 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
>
>> I communicated the issue to multiple mailing lists, so I assume the active
>> m68k people have received my mail. But I haven't heard back from them.
>
> In particular,
I'm a bit concerned about your argumentation style in this thread. It
feels to me a lot like you're saying that people are wrong simply
because they are disagreeing with you. In future discussions, I'd
recommend finding a way of having the discussion that acknowledges
disagreement and is more foc
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:20:
> I communicated the issue to multiple mailing lists, so I assume the active
> m68k people have received my mail. But I haven't heard back from them.
In particular, have you reached to Andreas Schwab?
(> Is t
On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
>> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
>
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian
On 9/29/19 12:07 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
>> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
>
> I have been looking at
> https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/m68k, I was expecting
> some answers to the questions proposed at
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-cr
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:06:
> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
unrelated
Hello,
Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
del dia ds., 28 de set. 2019 a les 11:44:
> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?
I have been looking at
https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/m68k, I was expecting
some answers to the questions proposed at
h
On 9/28/19 9:07 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer
> of course can include a company volunteering emp
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:07:51PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > what about keeping old contributors attracted?
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer
On 9/29/19 3:14 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
>
> Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development
> nor external projects using Debian f
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development
nor external projects using Debian funds. The only exception I can
think of is helpi
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 1:38 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time
> development tasks through funding efforts.
I think that the purpose of GSoC (and other outreach programmes) is
(or should be) mainly to grow the FLOSS
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
>afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
>that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
>
>So the m68k port seems to be
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> > otherwise.
>
> what about
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
>> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
>> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
>> things. Sorry for that.
>
> Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people u
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on
> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up
> things. Sorry for that.
Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people unless explicitly requested.
[...]
> But that’s just your personal opini
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>
> Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on mobile at
the moment though so my phone might be messing up things. Sorry for that.
> ]] John Paul Adrian
Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.
The
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 6:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>> No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
>> worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
>> this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
>> and
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Hello!
>
> On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support
> >> would
> >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> >> have already opened a tracker bug upst
Hello!
On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
>> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
>> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
>> linked t
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> otherwise.
what about keeping old contributors attracted?
--
cheers,
Holger
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
> linked the issue to BountySource
I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of
existing developers and users.
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200
...
> to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
>
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
...
> I have already talked to the DPL personall
Hi,
On 2019-09-28 11:44, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
Just for clarification, what you call "Debian Ports team" is the group
of porters working on some of the ports hosted on the "Debian Ports" [1]
service
Hello!
I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0"
to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
In the future, gcc upstream
59 matches
Mail list logo
