On 2006-11-10 16:21 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Phil, > > > At a first glance this looks more like a TLS emulation kind of problem > > than an instruction set discrepancy. But it'd take a bit more detective > > work to figure out what's really going wrong, and I guess there is no > > guarantee that this is the same problem the netwinders are seeing in any > > case. > > So where does that leave us for etch? Does a mono that doesn't run on > netwinders and apparently not on smackdown either, but does run on other > cats systems, make the grade for release? If no one has time to investigate > the problem on netwinder, that at least suggests to me that netwinder isn't > that important a use case for the porters and probably not the users either. > > Does the "TLS emulation" diagnosis imply a bug elsewhere in the kernel or > glibc rather than in mono? > > Anyway, our three real choices here are: > > - mono support on netwinder is not RC in the porters' estimation, so the bug > can be downgraded or etch-ignored > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, but no one has > time to work on this problem, so the arm binaries should be removed from > the archive for the release > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, and there is a > porter with the know-how and time to fix this bug who is volunteering to > have me nag them once every other day until it's fixed ;) > > If we are still missing information for the porters to decide whether this > should be RC, what can I do to help get that information?
OK. I don't have a netwinder to test on (tbm took mine), and probably don't have sufficient expertise either. This failure is extremely odd. I think we should etch-ignore this bug, it's not ideal, but no-one is rushing forward to fix it, and netwinders will become less important during this release. Their use as buildds is the main reason it's a problem in practice - can we arrange to only have this built on the non-netwinder machines? Removing mono from arm for this release entirely seems worse than having a version which does work on some(?)/most(?) hardware. Wookey -- Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679 work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
