On Mon, 2024-10-28 at 15:51 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> You talk about "applications ... being written". Well, two days ago I
> mentioned several groups of applications: (1) core packages that accept
> alignment patches, (2) packages whose developers shouldn't worry about
> small systems anyway, and (3) packags I am concerned about i.e. the ones
> actually required by Debian/m68k users (which will presumably lead to
> disto bug reports, if they didn't already -- hence my question about bug
> reports which remains unanswered).
As I said before, it's about (transitive) build dependencies and the fact
that more and more packages are being rewritten in Rust.
Here is the current top of the list of packages that won't build on m68k
because of the 2-byte alignment issue:
2814 cargo:m68k
900 ghc:m68k
261 gccgo-14:m68k
241 libqt5core5a:m68k
181 architecture-is-64-bit:m68k
117 libglib2.0-0:m68k
81 libcompiler-libs-ocaml-dev-0a396:m68k
81 golang-go:m68k
71 wx3.2-headers:m68k
57 qt6-base-dev:m68k
57 python3:m68k
46 libamd2:m68k
Are you going to fix these for me?
> > For Debian, we have superh and i386, out of these.
>
> Is your concern merely for Debian's package archive stats?
It's not about stats, it's about reverse dependencies.
And, to be honest, I'm started to get tired of this discussion. If there is not
going to be an agreement here, I will either drop the m68k port from Debian or
use the brute-force method with Chewi's patch.
I don't have the energy anymore to justify myself regarding this anymore.
> What interests me is portability and code reuse in general. That is the
> basis on which I would send alignment patches to upstream projects.
Upstream projects do not take patches which fix code on m68k. They don't care.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
