On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 06:41:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I verified on my system, before proposing this patch, that the test suite
> passes if I re-run it after installing sablevm; i.e., there is no problem
> with the resulting bigloo binaries, they just are not compatible with the
> gcj runtime due to problems with gcj itself.
>
> So this seems to me to be a very straightforward workaround for the problem
> of sablevm being in an inconsistent state across architectures right now in
> unstable, even though the packages in testing should work fine.
Yes, that could be, downgrading.
> Another possibility though would be to make bigloo-backend-jvm arch: all,
> since it only contains java code. That should save us around 15MB in the
> archive (per version), and it means not having to worry about which
> architectures sablevm is working on at any given moment when building.
> Would you find that option more acceptable?
If only I would be sure of the arch-independant character of the stuff
in the backend-jvm package, I would have done that already :)
In fact, the file sizes in the arm and amd64 are even different for
bigloo_s.zip in 2.7a-1. While it is not a proof of non-portability,
it is not a good sign either.
Best regards,
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
