On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 05:12:13 GMT, Volkan Yazici <vyaz...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> doc/building.md line 1404: >> >>> 1402: | armel | buster | arm | arm-linux-gnueabi >>> | zero | >>> 1403: | ppc | sid | powerpc | powerpc-linux-gnu >>> | zero | >>> 1404: | ppc64be | sid | ppc64 | powerpc64-linux-gnu >>> | (all) | >> >> This one is not about Fedora, but about Debian-based sysroot. I have not >> checked recently, but I suspect it would still work, as Debian PPC64 BE port >> is still alive: https://wiki.debian.org/PPC64 > > @shipilev, thanks so much for the review. 🙇 I was thinking in the same with > @magicus while removing this row. Do you still prefer to keep it? This list is also _not_ about Fedora devkit, and the PR is about Fedora devkit, so we are doing unrelated work here, regardless if it makes sense or not :) So yes, I prefer to keep it. > I think all our ppc64 code assumes le by now, so even if we could get a > sysroot for ppc64be to work, I doubt it will do much good for the JDK. I believe Zero is still fine with BE. Anyhow, we are doing these cross-compilation instructions largely to support the poor souls who are tasked with maintaining the unusual ports. So if Debian PPC64 BE port is alive, which I think it is, that would mean they build OpenJDK, that would mean they build _some_ PPC64BE config, whether Zero (more likely) or Server (unlikely, as it is probably broken). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26821#discussion_r2284832460
