On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 09:38:04PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Sébastien Villemot > <sebast...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 08:02:58PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, YunQiang Su <wzss...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Sébastien Villemot > >> > <sebast...@debian.org> wrote: > >> >> Dear YunQiang, > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:15:08PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > >> >>> Package: src:ffcall > >> >>> Version: 2.1-1 > >> >>> > >> >>> MIPS release 6 drops some instructions: bnel/beql included. > >> >>> For r6, we should use bne/beq for replace. > >> >>> > >> >>> The patch has submit in salsa as a merge request. > >> >>> > >> >>> https://salsa.debian.org/common-lisp-team/ffcall/merge_requests/1 > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for your report and your patch. > >> >> > >> >> You may have overlooked the fact that these assembly files are actually > >> >> generated by GCC from C source code (see the DEP-3 header of > >> >> debian/patches/mips-fpxx.patch), so your proposed patch is not very > >> >> maintainable in the long term. > >> > > >> > Oh, thanks. Since then, I guess we should generate these .S files > >> > when build instead of put them in the source code. > >> > > >> > I will have a look at it. > >> > >> After read Makefile.devel, I think that we should call the right > >> target in debian/rules. > >> Should this the ideal way? > > > > This could be a possiblity, but this is not supported by upstream. And we > > would > > have to patch this Makefile.devel to make it work (it expects non-standard > > names for GCC). So I do not really like this solution. > > > > In fact we can patch it to use $(CC), and pass it when we call these targets, > and then we can drop the patch for the .S/.s files. > The length of patch file will be much shorter. > > Anyway, we will have to patch it. > Wish my attached patch can change your mind. ;)
I really don't like the kludge for mips in debian/rules. I think that all things considered I prefer your very first patch, which had the advantage of being very small. Could you please resend it with two small modifications: - a .patch extension for consistency - DEP-3 headers Also, do you need this to be uploaded now, or can this wait for some time? Thanks, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
